2nd Counter-Reply to Mush (:<

Hi Mush,
I'm not too sure about this, but it seems as if Bangladesh's problems do not stem from the system of democracy, but rather the flaws in Begum Khaleda Zia's government, or other factors. Is Zia's government truly practicing democracy? Or are they turning democracy into a developing military dictatorship? According to Wikipedia (sorry), "They [the military] are also assisting the interim Government of Bangladesh in a drive against corruption which seems to be mostly targeted against the politicians and opponents. The military has also imposed censorship of the national media and closing down/hampering private TV stations. Illegal detentions and torture to extract confessions have also become rampant." Wikipedia also states that there is a "lack of coordination" between the Election Commission and the Government and political parties, and the World Bank has stated that "among Bangladesh’s most significant obstacles to growth are poor governance and weak public institutions." Perhaps the concept I just described may be overdone, but in this case I feel that a lack of proper coordination and corruption problems serve more towards the overall stability of Bangladesh than the system of democracy itself.
There are some discrepancies between the information you provided and the information provided by Wikipedia. Wikipedia may not be always reliable as a source of information, but it is noteworthy that the website states: "Bomb attacks taking place since 1999 have been blamed on those groups[radical Islamic parties]...The first recorded case of a suicide bomb attack in Bangladesh took place in November 2005." Could you clarify if the bomb attacks in 1999 were indeed carried out in Bangladesh?
Also, responding to Daron's desperate plea for real-life examples of successful democratic states, I cite the United Kingdom, which works on a constitutional monarchy. The U.K. enjoys relative overall stability. Also, they experienced their first terrorist bombing just a few years ago as well, so I don't see how experiencing a bombing is an indicator of the failings of democracy.
Replying to Greg, I believe Switzerland is a model example of the ideal democratic system. Switzerland boasts the second most competitive economy in the world and as a neutral country, enjoys general stability for its people.
Generally, democracy is a good idea. Its very basis of "power to the people" implies stability because the people get their due say in the ideal democratic system. However, its many forms and interpretations often result in corruption of the system. For example, in plain contradiction of one of the principles of democracy, certain South-East Asian countries rig their elections and polling procedures. Mush raised a very valid point earlier in the discussion--if 51% of the citizens agree on an issue but 49% think otherwise, the 51% still counts as the majority even though the difference is not much. While this is possible and the minority's opinion will indeed be undermined, in most cases I do not think that making the minority unhappy would neccessarily cause conflict and unrest. Usually, citizens are for something because it is advantageous to them. Not getting their wish does not neccessarily imply riots and unrest because their loss is not as consequential as life or death.
Sorry for excessively long article.