Quick question..

Lumpenproletariat: I was listening to a speech by a disable person, doesn't matter really, the views she expressed were nothing new under the sun. You have protesting happening in small pockets globally, and I've found no matter who I speak to on politics there's an underlining dissatisfaction and contempt for policies/politicians/how matters on a government level are handled. Is this a reflection on democracy failing...probably more than democracy though, since the Arab Spring can be considered as a type of resistance to non-democratic rulers? -idk, it certainly has gaping flaws and issues that varies from country to country. We have experimented with different forms of government-types in the past as fascism, autocracy, etc. Do you think that democracy will collapse/transition into another form of government system?

Winter0fDiscontent: Along history, we have seen the tendency to dominate the masses, under whatever regime was the one imposed. The creation of democracy to reverse this is, in my view, based on a falacy. There where there is a head ruling above there is no solid representation of the people below. Hierarchies fail to represent a status of self-government (for the people by the people). As seen in southern american countries lately, the executive branch has it very easy to overcome the other two. The legislative organ favour the former as they usually belong to the same political party. In fact, no executive branch would survive without a favouring majority in the Congress and Senate. The Judicial organ, a bit more resilient to being walked upon, is usually found wrapped under extortion, bribery or prosecution. Prosecution is not always based on illegal terms but using democratic tools such as taxes auditings,or, as it has occured in Argentina lately, by cutting the funds required to allow the Judicial branch to work properly.
The fact that one organ has authority over the other two could be considered quite far from the utopic idea of a nation governed by itself.
Given the human nature or the quality of those who usually make it to a presidency, an average democracy should be redesigned with the necessary and irreversible means to impose a more controlable behaviour in the Executive power.. Other organisms as the opposing parties have, thus, little to no voice if the legal system is either obnoxious or obsequent. (Let's not forget that the tendency in the massive population is that of letting the presidents do as wished until the economy is on the brink of total disaster.)
Democracies as such wouldn't be transforming into another means of governing domination but initially adapting to the requirements of the voting masses to later select their source of benefits, aligning with a capitalist or a (pseudo) socialist option. Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil are a clear example of how a false socialism is practised when what we actually find behind the mask of equality is a desperate and ignorant nation accepting tyranical and fascist impositions in exchange of subsides and welfare, while the sectors supporting the government policies make millions overnight by means of lethal corruption. The three mentioned are well known to have stolen zillions from public funds, whereas Venezuela, a country that produces and sells more oil than Saudi Arabia has been exhibiting, for example,a drastic shortage in food and basic by-products. (They have been forced to import toilet paper given the disastrous policies against industry and the hidden numbers of inflation that have led to a serious scarcity nationwide, among other basic elements.)
There is usually the massive control via the media and the anihilation of any opposing journalism to grant the double speech settles in the people's common
view.
As said, it is clear that for a country to sustain a favourable democracy in which people don't become more ignorant, poor and obsequent, there is an urgency in creating different controlling organisms with the authority and funds of their own, of complete independence from any of the organs of the current system of government.
Otherwise, things will never evolve. Tyranical ruling models can be fought massively with the hope of inserting a democratic government. But when the basis of a democracy has been malfunctioning for ages, there is nothing else to expect but a better candidate next time. Candidates are usually sponsored and have to give back once in power, candidates are also part of that ignorant undereducated nation that has hardly discerned standing for their rights from attempting against the ruling democratic model (this is currently the situation in Argentina and Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia, among others).
A democracy as is, I think, is bound to fail in both the proper representation of the people and the urgent transformation of a country.

Lumpenproletariat: Yes, what you say makes sense.
I like that idea of the important bodies as the Judiciary or the Legislators being independent/uninfluenced by the Government/other entities. Accountable for itself.
Maybe the corruption and mistrust is a result of the inequality in society. As in it isn't only politicians but other groups doing the same 'putting the hand in the cookie jar' act. They're not fearful of the public. There are cases where a politician don't need to fear the people to keep his position, they can get sponsored in privately, they can get a lavish lifestyle, they can pacify the public with: empty speeches, media antics and as you said, 'pseudo socialism'. Or it can be from mismanagement where those who are placed forward are not suitable for governing a country.
Keeping those who oppose as Venezuela has done only serves to prevent other views from being considered or debated. In other countries they'll just ignore any opposition all together.
Having transparency might work to an extent but also to have an input or more participation. As well as accountability. I don't know if there is any solution in fixing the problems with democracy and I'm all for viewing any solution placed forward with a sceptic approach. In the end, leaving things as they are now, I agree that it will fail too. Either some economic collapse or civil unrest.

Winter0fDiscontent: I would go for economic collapse, because in democratic states such as all southern american countries, there aren't strong opposite parties, hence, given the very unlikely social rioting that led to a revolution, there would be nothing nearly fitting to run the countries instead of the established system. People know it well. Things have been twisted to a limit so that a new government not allied with cartels, corrupted and very powerful unions, all the feudal-like governors in the provinces/counties and enough money to buy the media is not expected to succeed for long.