Sure, because in the past if you disagreed those people would have killed you and taken what they wanted. Now we just give it to them to avoid the strife. But

Sure, because in the past if you disagreed those people would have killed you and taken what they wanted. Now we just give it to them to avoid the strife. But there's very little (none?) evidence that a traditional "strong" (bully) leader is more effective than a committee. Modern businesses tend to understand this because they appoint a strong CEOs but manage them with a board which retains ultimate power. Sadly, this wisdom has yet to reach the electorate. When we elect a bully we give them free run. (Even in a country like Canada with the Prime Minster chosen by the party, the party rarely controls them.)