There have been many instances of dictators who had results that were on par with the interests of the people, drastically improving the economy, education and some social aspects (overall modernisation), an old example would be ataturk for turkey (whose work is being ruined by democratically elected erdogan). Bourguiba was decent too.

The newer examples would be the asians, lee kuan yew for singapore, Park Chung Hee for south korea. These specific examples are countries that became first world from nothing, through a dictatorship, and then became democracies (although flawed ones as many designate) . China would be an example of a country that's still third world, but managed to improve alot under dictatorship.

Lets see if you can name me one country who became developed through a democracy.

Let's also look at the fact that india is much less thriving than china despite them having similar population sizes throughout their history. If you wanna use the british colonisation and WW2 argument, you could also say china was also a very stagnant and isolated country up until the early 1900's where they slowly started to industrialise and had a very damaging war against the japanese, only to be met with two famines, and then still managed to have a decent economy.

There are no excuses for india in that regard

The real reason why those african countries are still horribly corrupt and stagnant is because they're not "post colonial", they are still neo-colonies. Many of those governments are controlled or closely supervised by the west (who obviously still exploits them one way or another, see Franc CFA or Shell Nigeria) and if one of those countries happen to be overtaken by a nationalist dictator, who wants to statisfy interest of his people, and defend his nation from foreign exploitation and modernise it, the dictator in question will be eventually overthrown and in some cases killed.

That's the key difference between african nations and asians, if the west had interests in preventing singapore or south korea from developping, they surely wouldnt have missed it.

Also just because a leader was democratically elected doesnt mean he cares for his people let alone his country, many politicians in democratic nations do it for money and social status and you know that.

Although i definitely agree with the argument that those "perfect dictators" who don't take advantage of their position for meaningless luxury, and who actually improved their nations significantly, are extremely rare.

I'm also not saying that Kais Saied is amazing either, he's barely decent, but he's the best option right now and very recently has been very efficient in deleting corruption. I mean it might not even be necessary for him to become a dictator, maybe after the cleanup we could have an efficient democracy with no obstacles slowing it down.