I thought this was going to be an article with some historical examples of leaders bad behavior against the general populace that actually helps them keep power and the effects on it. Instead is more of a tips and tricks on how to accrue long lasting power.
Also I disagree about "democratic leaders have to dole out public goods to maintain their power". At least I think public goods here is too flimsy of a phrase to use here. It is alluded later that one of the problems of a leader is bankruptcy. This implies most favours to the 'winning coalition' and doling up public good being just monetary compensation. I don't think is a good way to phrase it. Bread and circus goes more to the point, the former seems an anesthetic, harder to understand way to say drop some money to keep the masses happy. And I don't consider that a 'public good'.
> Also I disagree about "democratic leaders have to dole out public goods to maintain their power".
Disagree all you want. This is why certain ideologies that tend to be rule-following and cast aspersion on the spoils system often have trouble holding power. Such as centrists, libertarians and greens.
I'm having a hard time seeing how any ideology opposed to the freebies and pork barrels gets into power at all? Let alone getting to the point of having "trouble holding power". In our system you're simply forced to give out freebies to your voters. There really is no choice. In fact, there are some freebies that all ideologies would be required to give out to all voters. I'm American, in my system an example of that kind of freebie would be something like social security maybe? or the mortgage credit? However, if you're not from the US, but rather from another democratic nation, I'm sure you could name the freebies that are mandatory in your system too.
Also I disagree about "democratic leaders have to dole out public goods to maintain their power". At least I think public goods here is too flimsy of a phrase to use here. It is alluded later that one of the problems of a leader is bankruptcy. This implies most favours to the 'winning coalition' and doling up public good being just monetary compensation. I don't think is a good way to phrase it. Bread and circus goes more to the point, the former seems an anesthetic, harder to understand way to say drop some money to keep the masses happy. And I don't consider that a 'public good'.