I simply deny the assertion that dictators who wanted good results and got them were rare exceptions. Citation needed.

The standards of evaluation of goodness should be specified in greater detail first. Else it is quite difficult to tell whether e.g. Atatürk was really benevolent or not, even if we agree on goodness of his individual actions. Some of the questions

• are the points scored by getting desired good results cancelled by the atrocities, and to what extent?
• could a non-dictatorial regime do better (given the conditions in the specific country and historical period), and if no, can the dictator bear full responsibility for his deeds?
• what amount of goodness makes a dictator benevolent?

Unless we first specify the criteria, the risk of widespread rationalisation in this discussion is high.