Of course we can’t be sure dictatorship will always be in good hands, hence next best thing is democracy.
While Winston Churchill was problematic to say the least, I do find some truth in his old line that “democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill is a mass murderer who killed millions in India.
A dictatorship can be more efficient, but is never as equitable.
The advantage with democracy is that it is slow and most of the time end up with fairly sensible results. Decisions are often so complex that it is impossible for one person to actually understand it all. A consortium of advisors could fill that role, but they have to be benevolent and trustworthy too. Their decisions have to be based on something, so the advisors need researchers and people gathering intelligence and statistics. Those people also have to be trustworthy.
All these layers have to be with as benevolent as possible. In a well functioning democracy, all layers would feel safe. It is really important to be safe from harm when giving bad news, or telling the dictator/advisors that their idea is really dumb, and would be a waste of resources or have a bad effect.
You could argue that a benevolent dictator would welcome bad news, other arguments. However the difference in power would certainly make it scary anyways.
Succession is another issue, and mental decline. Some people become quite mean in old age.
The closest thing I could envision might work is some sort of semi-democratic technocracy. I still think improving democracy is better though
Yes. You need my good hands in charge and telling you what to do. Trust me.
If by “democracy” you mean the broad philosophy of people having a right to decide the law for themselves in some way, then I would argue that it’s better than even a “good” dictator. Dictators can be fickle, capricious, manipulative, and more while appearing to be utterly golden individuals outwardly. What happens when culture changes but the dictator doesn’t like where it’s going and refuses to change his ways? Is he still “good”? And as others have mentioned, how do you quantify “good” anyhow? You’re appealing to a moral standard presumably outside the law, so what happens when that standard doesn’t match what the people believe?
If I was dictator of the world, I could do everything so much better.
No no no it is I who would do things better!
deleted by creator
Many rich asian countries were dictatorships before they got rich. Once people enjoy a prosperous economy, they start asking for democracy and human rights. But not before.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan all went the same route.
Democracy does seem to cater people just below average. Good monarchs can easily beat that, but then the new problem presents itself very quickly - good monarchs are far and few between.
Enlightened absolutism certainly has its appeal…