Not really; it just establishes that people who do work and create things of value have some kind of claim to continuing that work and controlling its growth.

The alternative is probably the "tyranny of the outside majority". You can't do things _other_ people, unrelated to your work, don't like.

That's not the alternative. E.g. the Linux CoC explicitly only governs activity inside the project, or while representing the project (the latter is an interesting but IMHO necessary scope problem). The board tasked with enforcing it is entirely built from high-ranking contributors.

The mechanism for that is really outside the scope of such codes, that is what the licence is for, and that's where the idea of the BDFL comes from: While the established structure recognizes someone as the de-facto leader, there is no mechanism for that leader to actually stay in power if a large majority of the contributors want them gone, because a Free Software licence ensures that people can just fork if the dictator isn't sufficiently benevolent in their eyes.