But then there are a few inevitable problems such as, power corrupts. We see it all the time. And after a long time in power, almost all of them lose touch with the people they are supposed to serve. They start worrying about preserving their own power rather than being understanding and compassionate. They will commit atrocities and think nothing of it.
And then of course, it sets the precedent for more and more dictators, some of whom will certainly not be benevolent.
A good dictator can be a big boon in a short time, but in the long run, we see the same failures again and again.
A person responsible for the development of the country has much more awareness of the choices that would lead it to success. A dictator can always take action to ensure that their successor has the same vision as them by screening who their successors would be in the first place.
A collective group that does not have a mindset of making rational decisions does not necessarily constitute a good electorate. A group, just as an individual, would choose representatives who think and act just like them, but not necessarily make choices that would lead a country to prosperity per capita.
In the context of human rights, a "bad" electorate can also choose to reduce the rights of its own citizens if it believes that there is a threat. This would lead to the wrong kind of authoritarianism that skeptics are worried about.
While in a democracy an elected leader is constrained by the law and other things making it harder for him/her to make big changes and reforms, while a dictator doesn't have to worry about this, and you wouldn't lose your freedom, you just couldn't decide who gets to lead your country. Of course, if the dictator was a bad person or only cared about power instead of his/her people then it is one of the worst types of government (Hitler for example).
Sure a dictator can do things a lot more faster without anyone needing to agree, but I think that is a bit reckless and lacks any understanding on what the people want. Certain things get moved naturally, having such things forced on people will create a lot of backlash. The people would want to needed it before it would be accepted. Although that doesn't mean that democracy isn't bad either. Some politicians (mini dictators) can manipulate their people to vote a certain way through undercut tactics like producing false facts and slander. To a degree I think democracy has and have had the ability to become a dictatorship.
It's about being skeptical of people's motives until they product it!
Power corrupts, Power corrupts more if you don't have to answer to anybody. Read your history, Rome, Europe, Popes and Dictators have failed miserably in taking care of their subjects and most of then went to war for riches. Japan up until after WWII had an emperor who was thought to have been deity. While this lead to very loyal people, it also led to many suicides in the emperor. You can read the Old Testament and the number of wicked kings far out numbered the good kings. God stated that King Ahab did more evil in his eyes than any other king before him. When people worshiped Baal, they would offer up their children for a sacrifice.
There are some good rulers:
Augustus, became the first emperor of the Roman Empire and ruled from 27 BC until his assassination in 14 AD. His rule established an era of unfamiliar peace and quiet, known as the Pax Romana, a feat that had never before been accomplished.
Joseph II was the Holy Roman Emperor from 1765 to 1790. He was the first ruler of Austrian dominions of the House of Lorraine. Joseph is probably history’s most unselfish ruler.
Queen Elizabeth I set the model for a female ruler at that time and is probably one of the most successful female rulers in history.
However, to ensure the rule of tyranny does not happen to a given group of people. The framers drafted the documents by which to govern country by and developed a Three but Separate and equal in Power form of government. Which has been the most successful thus far in history.