3 ms·

Or more pragmatically: whatever your motivation to become leader, you can only keep doing that if you stay leader. That means keeping the support of those with

Or more pragmatically: whatever your motivation to become leader, you can only keep doing that if you stay leader. That means keeping the support of those with the power to dispose you. In authoritarian regimes that often means vast amounts of resources flow to military leadership, police, oligarchs, and anybody else who can effect regime change, their corruption it's tolerated, and everybody else gets what's left. If anything. The genius of democracy is that regular citizens have the power to cause regime change, so leaders are well advised to care about their opinion too, in addition to all the other groups

raincom 3y ago
In democracy, just create fights between groups on issues of no-substance, and have two political parties. You get a system, which appears to be democratic, but controlled by the elite (uber wealthy, CEO-class, elite schools, think tanks, elite class of politicians, elite intellectuals specialized in propaganda). Politicians/leaders/parties change every x years, based on the election schedule, but this is a better system for the elite.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Especially easy in election systems that turn into two-party systems on their own, like first-past-the-post.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > but this is a better system for the elite. Empirically it’s better for everyone. So yes, you’re technically correct