I wouldn't disagree with it. I think I might add to it.
In “The End of History?”, Francis Fukuyama's very interesting way of describing that period, one thing was kind of right about the notions of the end of history: that there was no alternative to at least having the appearance of being a democracy.
Two things happened, I think, post the fall of the Soviet Union. One was that we underestimated the importance of nationalism, and the fact that nationalism was a core element of the way democracies see themselves and popular sovereignty. We didn't see that important strident element to democracy; hence, Yugoslavia and what happened in the early 1990s.
The other aspect was that I don't think we were really prepared for countries that were going to have the veneer of a democracy, and then subvert some core elements of democracy and democratic understanding in ways that we didn't expect. Yes, they still had elections, and yes, they still had parliaments, but they were not following the rule of law and they were closing democratic spaces.
Now in the social media age—and this is one of the key things we're dealing with now—it's kind of gone into hyperdrive, that ability to subvert on a daily basis the democratic spaces that are so critical to holding parliamentarians to account.