From my very limited understanding (for all those who know the theory better than I do, educate me please), the theory goes something like this:
Let A be God, B be the secular ruler, and C be the ruled.
The theory suggests, again my understanding might be incorrect here, that when B performs poorly, there will come a point where A will do something nasty, NOT to B, but to C instead as a signal of A's indignation towards B's acts. That is, the bad things happening to C serve as a red flag for B in the hope that B will cut back on his harmful acts targted at C.
But the question is, why B will do less of the bad acts when some of the costs of his bad actions are not borne by B himself or hershelf but shifted to C instead?