That seems like an uncharitable interpretation of what the OP wrote. Obviously, employees have varying degrees of power in any given company, not just the CEO. A team lead, a director, a middle manager, and so on all have varying degrees of power within an organization (at least on paper; we can speak of influence that isn't formalized). The point the OP was making is that because CEOs are ultimately employees, the same basic relevant "rules" or expectations apply to them by virtue of their employee relationship. That doesn't automatically excuse them of any wrongdoing. All employees share some responsibility and some culpability (though this part is more complex) in a company's operations. Indeed, CEOs are generally more responsible for the company's direction than any other employee, and they must assent to what the shareholders are asking them to do.
(Also, you've unfairly maligned monarchies. Monarchies are not by their nature despotic, though they can be as can other forms of government. And if you want to make the analogy, then most companies are closer to monarchies than to democratic republics in the sense that at most companies, you don't have a say in who is CEO, for example.)
(Also, you've unfairly maligned monarchies. Monarchies are not by their nature despotic, though they can be as can other forms of government. And if you want to make the analogy, then most companies are closer to monarchies than to democratic republics in the sense that at most companies, you don't have a say in who is CEO, for example.)