I may be factually wrong, but I hear that Singapore is/was somewhat autocratic. However, the government was competent and honest, avoiding things like nepotism and suchlike. The result of all this is that starting from the mid-20th century, it grew from one of the poorest nations on earth to one of the richest. All this as a small island country that even has to import its own water.
China is basically a giant kleptocracy. My dad is fond of China, but I am hesitant. China is so corrupt that it's hard for good things to come from it. I guess it is slowly industrialising and getting better, but it seems to be labouring under a heavy burden.
I have long been suspicious that the Chinese economy would collapse. My theory is that it produces returns below the cost of capital. That's why we've seen movement in production from places like America to China.
My argument is that you produce wealth by creating returns that are in excess of the cost of capital. You destroy it if it's the reverse. So we could find out that America has actually done the right thing by letting China do the manufacturing.
That's all just my theory, though. I've been thinking like this since the 90's. So far, I've been shown to be resoundingly completely wrong (at least as it appears on the surface. Will I have been proven to be very wrong until I'm proven very right, or is the whole thing just a completely invalid theory on my part).
The US has had bad presidents. They did damage. But without the checks and balances, they would have done far more.
It really depends on the demographics. For example, I think you need a more decentralized and federal government when the state is comprised of different nations.
Building the 3 Gorges dam out of various types of concrete, and not letting it cure properly, etc. Every possible corner was cut, repeatedly. This is a project that not only supplies power- it is supposed to control floods, and they more or less agreed that it won't work for that. The damage to the dam this year must have been immense, and as the climate changes we can expect more of the same kind of rainfall and flooding. In no possible universe is a major dam collapse flooding Wuhan under 2m of water and washing away Pudong an example of "short term concerns".
Building empty cities, despite having a population that will decline very soon, and low quality construction that degrades relatively quickly. Ok, short-term consequence is the real estate bubble keeps on going, but if you are worried about the long term, probably better to nip that in the bud. And don't even get me started on the Belt and Road initiative, which is an expensive jobs program that has hurt China's image abroad.
I have to admit, a one party system does seem like the best type of government, on paper. It can be more efficient and do things much faster than anything else. Billionaires can't just pay politicians to create/modify laws in their favour. And for the average citizen, life's the same as in a democracy.
But that only works if the party is working for the country, gives people a decent amount of freedom and listens to their needs.
When the party no longer keeps the people content (which seems inevitable, looking at history), there's practically no way to change it besides a violent revolution. That's a huge drawback, and the reason we're better off with a slower democratic system that doesn't have a single point of (catastrophic) failure.
Modern China seems to work a lot like Imperial China. Just with different names for the emperor and his officials, more freedom and rights for the population, as well as more means to keep them in check.