When I first wrote my book called Globanomics, i would say that i kind of looked down on "benevolent dictators"--writing them off, quicker than i should have.

For example, i truly believe both China and India work under a "benevolent dictator" form of government--the opposite of a democracy.

However, when you look at where India and China began, they were countries that both had about 1.4 billion people with probably only about 0.2 billion of those being educated and living at least middle class lives.  The rest of the country was both "uneducated" and "poor".  

Under that situation, a democracy would probably end up only tearing the educated and elite class down.  If the elite class instead takes the reigns of power in an effort to "raise" the number of people that are both educated and contributors to society.  So that is what the "elite class" does in a "benevolent dictatorship"--it tries to raise its peoples up.  And it does this by investing in "education", "infrastructure", "getting electric power to the people", "build damsn:, etc. etc. etc.  Just like China has been doing and India is starting to do.

Who can cry foul for that as a goal.  And when you look around now, fifty-years after China started rejoining the world, the have increased the number of Chinese that are both educated and educating.  China could probably look around and claim that in fact it has as many educated people as the United States has.  (That may be true; however, there will always be things that the United States knows that China does not know).  It's easy to see how someone like Xi Jinping could look ahead to the time China has four-times the number of people educated--inevitably applying China's leadership over the U.S.  (Again, the math still does not hold up--the United States will stay have the greatest knowledge of daily events),

So, anyway, my point is this.  Benevolent dictators can be viewed as the appropriate way to run a country depending upon the circumstances.  The problem with Benevolent Dictators comes when the population becomes satisfactorily educated and responsible.  When the general population is educated and responsible, democracies work better than benevolent dictatorships, but flip that around maybe if the general population is uneducated and not responsible.  In effect, democracies can make better decisions than "benevolent dictators", but only if the population is educated and responsible.

ps.  I hate to say what the above means in the United States these days, when a large proportion of our educated and responable "public" wants to turn our "democracy" over to a "dictator" that isn't even benevolent.  Forty-six percent is the latest number that i have heard.

ps1. Go figure