In post-colonial and post-neo-colonial populist states such as Iran, as well as socialist states such as Cuba, the institutionalized means of reaching and honoring an agreement between leaders and masses have often taken the form of corporatism within the framework of illiberal democracy and largely state-owned economy, and in European social democratic states, they have generally taken the form of neo-corporatism within the framework of liberal democracy and largely market economy. The former, IMHO, have suffered more from an insufficient level of productive conflict in public than from an insufficient level of development of institutions that would allow bargaining between leaders and masses.
[WS:] So I gather that you agree that the issue is the right balance between conflict and cooperation, given particular historical circumstances.
I would push it a bit further and say that the type of conflict and cooperation also matters. It often happens that some groups accept their subordinate position toward other groups "in exchange" - so to speak, for their dominant position toward still other groups. This is, for example the position of Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens re. the role of the middle class - in some situations (e.g. pre-war Germany) they showed more allegiance with the elites than with the working class, whereas in Sweden the opposite was true. Likewise, the feminist Heidi Hartmann argued, AFAIR, that the subordinate position of the working class vis a vis bourgeoisie during early stages of capitalism in England was accepted "in exchange" for the dominance of working class males over females.
So again, the type of conflict and the type of alliance/agreement (i.e. who cooperates with who, on what terms, and against who) matter quite a bit and can produce fascism (like in Germany) or social democracy (like in Sweden).
Wojtek