History proves, however, that this notion is more than a mere mistake. It is a fatal error. A democracy without opposition and public criticism is not a democracy at all; it is simply power without a correction mechanism.

As Robert A. Dahl reminds us, the essence of democracy lays not just in the act of voting but in the dual pillars of contestation and participation. Without a genuine opposition, contestation vanishes and democracy loses its soul.

The fundamental difference between established and developing democracies can be captured through a simple metaphor: Changing a national leader is like changing a chef.

In developed nations, a change in leadership poses no existential threat. This is not because their leaders are invariably exceptional, but because the kitchen in which they operate is inherently robust. Core institutions, such as the courts, the military, the bureaucracy and the private sector, are stable, independent and governed by rules that bind every actor.

Because the system possesses its own memory and discipline, when the chef is replaced, the menu remains the same, the ingredients remain the same, the recipe is followed and the kitchen layout stays intact.

Consider the United Kingdom, where power alternates frequently between Labour and Conservative governments without rattling the foundations of the state. The system absorbs change without the risk of collapse because ultimately, the kitchen is stronger than the chef.