I think this is actually rather typical of dictatorships - the more 'absolute' the power of the leader, the less dispersed sovereignty is, the more they end up

I think this is actually rather typical of dictatorships - the more 'absolute' the power of the leader, the less dispersed sovereignty is, the more they end up having to go with the current. There are two standard reasons for this. First, when you have a coalition, even in a non-democratic state, and the coalition agrees to do something, you're pretty safe - because you have everybody who matters on board. Second, people often end up in the position of absolute tough-man dictator because, unfortunately, that's what a lot of people want from their leaders. So it's often the case that the strongman stuff follows from a relatively weak grasp on power, rather than the other way around, as the leaders are pushed to play the part the audience wants from them (pre-WW2 Japan has been said to have been like this). PS: This is actually the classic Roman formula. The Emperor uses the support of the mob (soldiers, citizens, etc) to counterbalance against the traditional nobility (senate). So you get guys who technically are the absolute ruler and god of the state, bending over backwards to keep public opinion sweet.