You can raise the bar arbitrarily high, though. Make the destruction of the system require lots of coordinated effort, and then make coordination difficult. Coordination is hard for humans as it is, even without a system that actively subverts it. That's why we have lots of issued labeled together as "tragedies of the commons".
You can, but then you run head-first into another problem: this "bar-raising" undermines the legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the people and, not unjustifiably, makes them feel that it is undemocratic. Worse: this is a positive feedback loop. The more you raise the bar, the angrier people get and the more radical they will get in their attempts to tear it down, and so the more bar-raising is needed.
This is the unfortunate paradox that Matthew Yglesias highlighted in "American Democracy is Doomed" [0]: people are raging against horse-trading, organized parties, and 'elites' poo-poohing the "will of the people". This is totally defensible, but to some extent horse-trading and elite rule are the only things that make governance possible. I don't know any solution to this problem.
[0] http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doome...
Well, I think a parliamentary system with proportional representation would help a lot. In those systems, the parties/lists might trade horses, but you know that your vote bought some measure of strength for a platform you actually believe in. Oh, and real civil-service protections to keep government staff from being fired for political reasons, including for security and military officials.
One might argue it already is. Then you have a bad system with a lot of friction to change it.