All individuals are entitled to their private lives. But autocracies make no distinction from public and private--so others must make autocracies' personal goals those of all. Even more destructive of society, it intermixes tribal, cultural and the personal ambitions with the purposes and needs of institutions, demanding attention to them all as directed by leadership.
That is to say, ultimately, society must rise above any autocratic regime through disassociation by force, if necessary, the institutional interests from the autocratic whims of the government of the person, X. Yet under democracies, this disassociation is unnecessary, since elections are periodically required in a democracy, in which the will of the people dictates, rather than awaiting for a series of announcements by governmental authorities setting priorities upon his or her governed, the people.
All this is to say, a leader has a private life, involving personal character and interests. And that is to say, the leader is a human being, not an institution! Intertwining the two types of concerns, makes society into a mirror of personal human pursuits and longer-lasting institutional goals indistinguishable from one another. The leader is thus not a godlike leader of his nation, that lasts long after he no longer is leading it.
My opinion.