"Democracy leads to Stability". Discuss.

Most countries practice democracy these days. Apparently this “democracy” brings about stability which is essential for development in many areas such as the economic sector. What exactly is this “democracy” then?
Democracy here refers to a general government system in which the people vote for leaders (also known as members of parliament) through elections whom they believe can run the country well. After a few years elections are held again to decide the fate of the leaders – if the people are happy or satisfied they might re-elect them to serve for another term; however if they are not happy they may decide to vote for the opposition parties. I feel that democracy is a double-edged sword, having the ability to give rise to stability or instability depending on the circumstances.
There are a few general categories of stability present in a country. They are political stability, economic stability and social stability. They are intertwined in such a way that a decrease in one of them would almost inevitably lead to a drop in another. Although it seems that democracy is a political concept and therefore would only affect political stability, other areas are affected as well.
Democracy was intended to create stability in a country, or any other community practicing it for that matter. Instead of having a powerful leader who has control over everything and anything, democracy gives the people of the country more, if not a lot of power. In this way they can elect a leader who is willing to address their concerns and voice out any more that may come along, compared to living with a leader who does not care about them and resorting to protests and violence in order to make their needs heard. There you have it, social stability.
However, as I said above, democracy is a double edged sword. In a democracy the majority has more power compared to the minority, and if there is some prejudice in the mindsets of the majority it might lead to discrimination. Also, during voting everyone has an equal vote – a scholar’s vote has equal weightage as a hawker’s as well as a doctor’s, be it on issues regarding the economy where knowledge of the situation was required or on issues regarding the level of hygiene in hawker centres. In this case, even though the minority has more knowledge on the issue and would have made a better decision, the majority still wins over the minority regardless of how correct their mindset is.
Democracy was introduced to us long before we knew the exact meaning of the word. In primary one, we voted for our class monitor. As a group of friends we voted on which movie to watch, or which fast food restaurant to patronize on an outing. How beneficial towards stability is this general system of voting for the course of action? It satisfies the majority, leading to less unhappiness compared to if the minority’s choice was placed on a higher priority. It allows for opinions to be heard and decisions made based on the opinions. On the other hand it will not satisfy everyone as there is a group that will lose out (a community with people of the exact same mindset is very rare). Also bias may be present and the minority would lose out frequently.
Seen from my last point, bias affects stability in a democracy. Another important point is that leaders will too affect the stability if they are unable to make the correct decisions. I therefore conclude that democracy can lead to stability, but there are other contributing factors that cannot be overlooked as well.