I think you're mixing up a few things. Young democracies usually have a period in which both politicians and the people need to get used to a new way of doing

I think you're mixing up a few things. Young democracies usually have a period in which both politicians and the people need to get used to a new way of doing things, and defining the new way of doing things. This can take a while, e.g. see the Napoleonic period and its aftermath. A nice feature about the French republic is the tradition of the reboot: they're at v5 of the Republic now, with fully revised constitutions and significantly changed shapes (parliamentary to presidential systems for instance), something many countries could learn from I think. A defacto dictatorial period is often one of the first phases of new democracies. Secondly, a problem common to quite a few eastern European countries is an unclear separation of powers (trias politica) and even unclarity about the need for it among many voters. Such an instance could (and should) be able to overrule certain kinds of fundamental changes. Some scholars describe democracies as inherent experiments, which I think is very fitting and something we need to emphasize more. Obviously trying to organize things in a cooperative, or not that cooperatively, is a ongoing affair. There is no way to guarantee anything, but the people's continued involvement. I'd hope they typically wouldn't need guns, but can use tools like constitutionals courts, and, of course the ballot box at various levels of government. Like you say, a more regionalist design can make more local autonomy possible, see Germanys states vs highly centralized French style of governing.