If you see the peasantry complaining about the quality of their leadership, is it because their leadership is bad? Typically, it is not. It is because they're upset they're not the leader. (Everyone can be the leader, right? At the same time, even? That's why democracy works and is a good idea.) Roughly 98% of the time, it's due to resenting their lot in life, and 0% of the time it's because they could do better.
This creates a rather perverse incentive. If the lead are going to complain about the leaders regardless, what incentive do the leaders have to lead well? If you're gonna do the time, might as well do the crime.
Indeed the incentive is even more perverse. Peasants will complain even harder about a competent, effective leader. I think it makes them feel even more inferior by comparison. It is thus easier to band together an anti-leader mob if the leader is especially useful. Libtards hated Trump because he was more presidential, not because he was less.
"If he can do that, what excuse do I have?"
"Well... I think your mutant, tainted genome is a decent excuse, personally."
*incoherent monkey noises*
"Yeah, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Glad you understand. It's not like you had the option of having good genes but turned them down. It's not your fault."
(For some reason they get more upset rather than less. How curious.)
Overall, peasants demand bad leadership. There is no demand for good leadership. As a result, there is no supply of good leadership, unless you supply it yourself.
Although certainly the lord shortage even further guarantees this... it is not some weird injustice or unfortunate accident that good leadership is basically absent. Human society actively selects against good leaders at all times and in all places, except possibly the savannah where there's a group selection pressure which eliminates the tribes of the worst leaders.