Democracy does not promote stability

The term “democracy” is usually used as an ideal which promises to bring peace, prosperity and happiness to all. In real society, democracy means a system of government in which all the people of a country can vote to elect their representatives. From the definition, it seems to suggest that the aim of democracy is to represent all people’s rights and execute the will of the people.
Democracies are often at a relatively stable and relatively unstable balance between the states. And due to the equal power between the political elite under democracy, that means the same influence and equal legal status, political powers remain in a stable of relative balance. Balance means stability. In a democratic system of government, the equal political relations forms the checks and balances between the power elite, also make the political power more based on society and representative. In the condition that there is no absolute political authority, all kinds of social groups can present and show benefit smoothly, various social contradictions can be promptly released instead of accumulation and causing the crisis. Under democracy, all kinds of policies have t be discussed and negotiate among politicians representing different groups, after that a policy can be carried out.
But in fact, we are not living in utopia and the ideal of democracy is not so easy to deliver. The process of putting democracy into practice is complicated as the system involves representation of all the people who are required to perform their rights and duties, and it needs to preserve the equal chance for each individual or political group. Because it’s impossible for all people agree on the same idea, there are always discrepancies and resentments. So if democracy cannot satisfy all the participator and achieve their points of view, democracy becomes meaningless.
One of the obvious characteristics of democracy is to represent the political rights of people by voting. So that can execute the wish, or the will of people. But here comes the problem. Imagine there are contradictions between two or more ethnic or political groups in one state, democracy become the tool of the majority automatically. Voting will not execute the rights of everyone but the will of the majority. Hence under democracy, the majority has no chance to achieve its hope and preserve their rights. And this will result in conflict between ethnic and political groups. Think about the conflict in Sri Lankan. Between Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, democracy was used as a tool to discriminate against the minority. Sinhalese, as the majority, had the great superiority in the election. This kept the Sinhalese in power. No balance means contradictory, and the opposite of stability.
In a word, I don’t agree with the argument that democracy must promote stability. Whether democracy promotes stability or not, it depends on the situation of the country. For this question it does not have an absolute answer and it will still keep being argued and discussed. The best evidence is the time, the history. Is democracy a feasible way to achieve stability and development finally leads to agreement and happiness to all, it still take a long way to go.