Lee Kuan Yew (whom the late polymath and Berkshire vice chairman Charlie Munger greatly admired) and Park Chung Hee are two examples that quickly come to mind. I distrust technocrats and dislike dictators, but pretending every dictatorship has been a disaster for its people is short-sighted.
Does China today qualify as dictatorship?
I think that’s an interesting question with probably no simple correct answer.
> Does China today qualify as dictatorship?
It has many of the aspects of one, like authoritarianism and centralized control, which arguably could, in the right hands, yield superior outcomes. For example, being able to undertake and complete large infrastructures projects in an ambitious timeframe that would be strangled by political opposition (like NIMBYism or environmental objections) and bureaucratic red tape in the west. Munger was, unsurprisingly, also a fan of China's system.
Again, I'm not a fan of these systems, but pretending they always yield inferior outcomes is dangerous for western democracies, as it could lead to an underestimation of our rivals.
Also: originally, “dictator" was a magistrate appointed to hold sole power for a limited time during emergencies. This original, Roman sense of the word did not carry the negative connotations it has today.
The Greek Tyrannis is often fitting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
> A tyrant (from Ancient Greek τύραννος (túrannos) 'absolute ruler'), in the modern English usage of the word, is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their positions by resorting to repressive means.[1][2] The original Greek term meant an absolute sovereign who came to power without constitutional right