Certainly. I did not mean to imply that no king could ever be saintly, only that politics itself by its nature requires a kind of viciousness that is not in keeping with Christianity. It is a similar sort of statement as could be made about the long tradition of Christian warrior saints (e.g., St. George, St. Mina, etc.) -- they were virtuous, but they did not make the motives of the Roman army virtuous. Those who play the political game (including kings) and those who shape it (the 'influentials' surrounding the court) are not really to be considered in the same light. After all, it is a common claim that this or that president is/was a puppet of the Russians, or of the Saudis, or of the Turks, etc. So even leaders are beholden to more powerful forces and people, whether they intend to be or not. Trump et al. set policy insofar as they can set the agenda and the tone, but what comes out of the political meat grinder may be very difficult to recognize.
I don't see democracy as substantially different than autocracy in this regard. You are right that it is more about keeping your position than anything. The only difference is the number of people needed to secure it and hold on to it. If it's in a very corrupt, small-coalition country (i.e., with few people needed to secure and hold the position), it could be as few as a handful of generals and religious leaders, whereas if it is a democratic, large-coalition country, it is likely to be many times more people.
