Multi-party countries don't work well via common sense. There were many good dictators. Lenin, Napoleon I, Tito, Fidel Castro, Ceaser, and others. They all did something good. Not all dictators are bad. Sometimes, democracy will be corrupted, and invalid. Sometimes, it is the time for dictatorship, so that the fights end.
A dictatorship, specifically a benevolent dictatorship, can work much better than a democracy. With a democracy you have officials swapping in and out making it so that policies are changed repetitively. With a dictatorship you don't have this issue. Yes, dictators can be bad, but they can also be very good as we've seen throughout history.
Honestly, if everyone were to think logically and with an unbiased attitude toward everything then you would be able to see that dictatorship is the way forward. A strong leader, A strong proletariat majority and the destruction of the modern bourgeoisie in every country, every state, every continent would allow the world to move onward and upward together. Strong dictatorship does not necessarily mean one man above all else, the right man in power earning and living in equality to everyone else would mean perfection.
Most people are quick to shut down Dictatorship, because it sounds bad, and because it is not what most people want. This debate however, is over which works best. For those of you who are classically learned, Plato in "Plato's Republic" who some argue is one of the founders of our Democracy said himself that Dictatorship (tyranny) is the most effective form of government. When one person has all the power and no one cans top him that is the most effective. NO OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT CAN DO MORE IN AS LITTLE TIME. Look at what Hitler acccomplished. By no means do I condone Hitler, or his actions, but he killed 6,000,000 Jews and no one could stop him. When a dictator is in control it is most effective. A democracy is WAY TO SLOW. There ARE checks and balances, nevertheless this is why it is the most SECURE government and the least EFFECTIVE Government. That's why the Germans were so successful at the beginning of WW2. It was because they had a dictatorship (as did the Japanese btw) and while America, Great Britain and the entire world were debating Hitler was doing things.
Well, you want to know an example of strong dictatorship? Look at North Korea. Hundreds of thousands of people in forced labor camps, entire families executed just because one of them had a difference of opinion on public policy. Millions starving to death. Does that sound better to you than democracy? God, I hope not.
This "fair" dictator you speak of is not possible, at least not in the way you want to think. It is psychologically impossible to truly be fair at all times... When, to be a good dictator, you'd have to be fair... *all the time*. How many times a day do we humans think ridiculous things, or say them? When your word is law, you can't do that. Ever. Otherwise... Pineapple on pizza might get banned. And that'd be absurd.
Democracy demands a level of reasoning, and popular opinion. It's fair, because the real power lies in the hands of the citizens. This means, if trouble befalls them politically, it's no one's fault but their own. One person who got this position because their dad was hot stuff gets to randomly decide "I think we should ban the word 'muffin'." just because "Why not?". Even if such a "perfect" dictator existed, this utopia would only last until he was replaced.
In history, dictatorships have usually ended in disaster. Democracy is a better system because it has checks and balances. Also, if the people do not approve of the government's work, they can elect new officials. In a dictatorship, there are no such safety features. Dictators have too much power in the government.
Dictatorships do not work because the dictator always abuses their power, as is human nature. A strong dictatorship would not work better than a full-fledged democracy. Thinking anything otherwise is a mistake, and democracies almost always outperform dictatorships. After a person realizes this, they can proceed with the correct knowledge.
The classic archetype of the benevolent dictator is present in so many stories throughout history, but in reality, dictators are a mixed bag that are usually negative. For every Tito (Yugoslavia, who kept the country together almost single-handedly) there is a Castro, or a Stalin. Democracy might not be the best course in a given year, but it yields the best results in the long run.
Hypothetically, if you had the perfect leader who was strong and was "fair" to his/her citizens then it might be able to work. However, that is the ideal and the reality is often far from that ideal. One of the reasons why the US and other democracies are a magnet for people from non-democratic countries is that they can enjoy a freedom that they've never had. Also, there are checks and balances on leaders so that if the leader abuses his/her power, there are steps in place to remove the leader if need be. In a dictatorship, no such conditions apply and the leader is free to do as s/he pleases.
Another part of a democracy is that there is a lengthier process for passing/changing laws. The lengthier process allows for debate of the proposed laws or changes and the ability to analyze the effect of the proposals. Under the dictatorship such a process doesn't occur and are subject to the whims of the ruler. For example, one day a ruler can decide that everyone must wear hats. The next day, the ruler can make wearing hats illegal.
In general, dictators tend to be corrupt because power is corrupting. There have not been many historical examples of dictators who have been good to their people. Democracy, with checks and balances and elected representatives, is a much better system than dictatorship. Democracies do not fight wars against each other, but dictators do.