If there are major problems and the party in power has not only not solved those problems, but is unable to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, then many people will be inclined to go beyond blaming the party for inaction and blame them as the locus of conspiracy (which may be at least partially true in at least some cases).
For example, in a situation of neurowar ambush, all that people will know is that the people in power are not only not fixing the problem, but have the appearance of covering up the problem.
In the age of beyond-incipient neurotechnologies that can be used in a neurowar ambush (and also be diverse forms of other organizations which tend to bring societies down more so than to build them up), people will then be inclined to vote out WHOEVER is in office, and go for the alternative which appears most likely to result in radical change (hopefully of the type needed) and in recent years have demonstrated huge willingness to place their electoral bets on any new thing (e.g., France) or take risks that have potential for undesirable extremism (e.g., USA).
In such a situation, if the newly inaugurated are unable to address these risks effectively, they will easily be maligned as ineffective, leading to the entry of yet another set of fresh faces which will be poorly positioned (and lacking in knowledge) to engage in effective risk mitigation measures.
There is more on the question of major rejections of parties and taking chances on new options (e.g. the one-year old party that won the election in France, Trump’s winning the US presidential election) at Project Syndicate.