It's definitely a possibility that the intention is there, but I don't know that it's always intentional. I see it far more used by the type of organization than the specific political leaving of that organization. For example in American politics Mitch McConnell is in charge of a portion of the same party at the President. He often agrees with the President and has defended on numerous occasions. Despite this his office isn't generally described as a regime. He governs by consensus. I think that most western cultures tend to view dictatorial, non consensus governments as bad, which means a word associated with these might get a bad rap. In some quick research it appears that your belief that the connotation had shifted appears to be fairly correct. Usage has become more common for heavy handed governments, the word itself doesn't have that as part of the established long running definition however.