I would say there are two problems here that are different: intervention as it stands can regulate in favor of a few groups of people. More intervention can easily lead to more corruption.

As for austerity: reasonable people do not spend beyond what they have and if they do they do it in reasonable ways: things with an expected return on investment and with limited, calculated risk.

Yet what I see is increasing intervention and out of control debt.

Starting from these two premises...

I do not think austerity is antidemocratic in itself. What I see is that a high degree of intervention ends up doing a cost transfer to normal people.

But that would be a problem of hyperregulation, not from austerity itself IMHO. After all, I would say the correct philosophy is to spend what you have and measure the risk every time you go beyond that. Sometimes you have less, sometimes you have more, but I would not advice any person, business or state to go out of control about this. However, a state incentive is different from the former two, since they continuosly transfer costs by the force of law to unrelated people. Namely, I do and you pay, be it by friends regulation or by direct expenses and taxes increases.