Liberal democratic empire, rather than strip mine natural resources from the land, monetizes social capital through cost shifting. For example, business brings in foreign workers to suppress wages, but then dumps those workers into the surrounding community. Their cost of support consumes the social capital of that community through corruption of local institutions, increases in crime and social alienation. In other words, the cost of cheap goods is the loss of community and local control.
That's a great analysis. Democracy was always doomed to failure because as the article suggests the three to five year government term (as we know it today) is really a parliamentary dictatorship, all be it a hasty one, dedicated to the well being of the ruling classes supporting it. Maybe it worked better when the ruling classes were more divided or more concerned with the middle classes they relied upon. But with increasing economic profligacy, unsustainable exploitation and unlimited growth comes instability. In the face of potential self-destruction it follows that the desire or ability of the elite to keep the masses nurtured declines. Oppression becomes the tool of trade for our political system until the middle class finally resists, as it always has throughout history.
What is needed to complete this discussion is a solution. Perhaps there needs to be a constitutional change that ensures the interest of the democratically elected is balanced across the middle, lower and elite classes. Maybe that means dumping the upper house, house of lords or the senate and replacing it with a jury of (educated) peers, randomly selected from the wider community. A group, replaced frequently, whose only task is to ratify or reject the policies of the current (democratically elected) parliament.
Or perhaps it would be simpler to insist that anyone participating in government have no business interests, limited personal wealth, have restricted access to the media and receive no benefits other than an average public service salary.