You know, that is the thing that bugs me about democracy.
IF we assume the following:
1) There is no Ultimate Problem Solving Party;
2) Each party has a set of problems it can deal with, list of problems it doesn't care about and a list of problems it creates while in power;
The democracy only allows to change the set of current problems, giving an illusion of power to people while actually keeping it to those who people delegated it.
Point 2 isn't valid, as parties are made up of individuals with different skills and focuses, and "problem solving" as a set isn't well defined. Further, the statement can be made more readily about autocracy, as the permanence of a singular political order means that specific problems that are not seen as problems by the regime or outside context issues will both go either unaddressed or be addressed badly.
Diversification of politics and non-coercion for the public to support those politics is the best way we have to ensure that our changing situations are recognized and considered rationally.
It's sad how people talk about change but dont even consider that it might come from the ballot box.
Russia's foray into liberal democracy in the 1990s shows the ballot box alone can't improve things - no matter how low and single-digit Yeltsin's approval rating was and how many Communist MPs were elected into parliament, it didn't change a damn thing and didn't solve any of Russia's problems.
Russia did something in the 90's, but liberal democracy isn't a good description of it. Oligarchic mob politics coupled with economic insolvency do not a liberal regime make.