This argument makes about as much sense as the following one:

>Otherwise, the country would not be stable and vast sums of western money would not have to be sent there in order to ferment a color revolution.

The defining characteristic of an authoritarian regime as opposed to a democratic one is that it does not derive its power and legitimacy from the people - i.e. popular support. It may be stable and "popular" and still terrible, North Korea comes to mind. But as out of touch as you seem to be, you probably belong to that strange group of people who think NK is actually an anti Western paradise.

Have a fair election, where both sides are permitted to make their case to the voting public. No candidates or supporters would be imprisoned or legally harassed, before or after the election.

Then have another one a year or two later, since "your vote actually counts" would be a teaching moment for people who aren't used to it.

It is so apparent that they actually discredit the idea of opposing authoritarianism. Democracy is a tough sell if you know your local democratic movement is paid for by other countries which do not have your country's well-being, or existence, as a motivation.

So there are a lot of people discontent with lack of options and restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, but they do not have a voice. People who have a voice are universally paid agents of NGOs. They get good money to film expensive produced youtube videos and get cited by world press all the time. There is significant mismatch between two groups, but they get compounded and written off by the majority and the regime.