This is an intriguing comparison between Japan and Italy, two nations that seem so different, but in fact share a great deal. Both nations came late to the sweeping trends of the 19th century, but eagerly embraced the industrial revolution, nationalism and imperialism. Both also became allies of Nazi Germany and remain notorious for endemic corruption featuring close links between mobsters and politicians.
Richard J. Samuels asserts that "both countries also exhibit pathologies that contradict the more progressive requisites of 'ideal' democracy: frequent changes of government, a problematic balance between deference to authority and individualism, some stubbornly authoritarian social relations, extensive corruption, limits to effective participation in decision making, problems of accountability, and increasing cynicism toward politicians and bureaucrats." However, it seems that most democracies share many of these attributes and thus it is not certain why he suggests that these are especially distinctive features.
The main problem for Samuels is that his central thesis -- leaders make a difference -- is neither new nor especially controversial. He argues that social scientists have erred by emphasizing impersonal social forces and overlooking how individuals can shape history. It is not clear, however, that leaders have been elbowed aside quite as much as he suggests. Many of the excellent studies he cites suggest that he is far from alone in thinking that strong leaders can overcome constraints and generate unanticipated opportunities.