OK, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, how do you measure 'beneficial'? (I've not come across the term 'beneficial tyranny' before, despite having studied politics for 25 years now, but I am familiar with the term 'enlightened dictatorship'.)
I've already invoked Godwins law against you once today. And no, you can't self invoke it; it's a rule. :p The term is simply me personal interpretation where I would change a word or two. Enlightened dictatorship is close enough.
Now; were Maoism and Stalinsim enlightened dictatorships? They did hard things, sure, but they revolutionised their countries. In the 1920s, the USSR was ruined by WWI, the invasions by Britain, US, France, Poland, Japan, Canada, Germany, and whoever else was in on the act, the civil war begun by the Whites and supplied by the western powers... Stalin managed to turn that round so that in 10 years the USSR had vastly increased its standard of living for the majority of the population. Industrial production rose something like four-fold, electrification was continuing apace and there were massive strides in the rationalisation of agriculture.
They could be considered it. Progress!
Now; I'd argue that the 22million dead (or there abouts) severely weigh against any gains in productio, but presumably, that just comes under "You may not like either one of them, nor what tactics they employed to further to own agendas, but by god did they make major impacts on the world and revolutionize many aspects of modern life", does it?
This is where morality mucks up all the waters. At what point do we wage the cost of life against advances in said life? I felt Watchmen did a nice job touching on this subject. Would you kill millions to save billions? Could they have done the same without the sacrifice? Maybe, but I can't really answer it with any certainty. All we can do is see the impact they made against the price others had to pay for it.
In todays world, I see many areas where I personally would gladly remove certain things in the world for the greater good, even if others would choose to disagree with me. One example would be Muslims; when you have a religion that makes no secret of its genocidal beliefs and practices, I say it's best to wipe them out and spare the potential catastrophes they would cause. And yes, they feel the same way about the rest of us, so I do feel a moral justification for saying it, even if I did so with no moral context in the first place.
Benevolent dictatorship is the most insidious and vile form of government there is. Because 'benevolent' is never defined by the people being dictated to. It can never work, because there is no platonic ideal person who can disinterestedly juggle the conflicting claims of different social groups while floating above it all in a nirvana-bubble.
Hence the problem why noone would go for it. No one will accept greater unity for the sacrifice of their personal positions. I see that absolutely destroying American society. A melting pot is one thing, but not taking appropriatte roads to unity is simply stupid when the only argument against it is that it would cost diversity.
You know what? Make English the fucking official language. How the hell are we supposed to do anything if we can't even talk to each other? But is it fair when Sanchez doesn't speak any? I don't give a shit, his personal problems can be set aside so the rest of us can actually talk to each other and make things happen. I use the same logic on a larger scale when it comes to Benevloent Dictatorships.
Using my previous example, not many people liked a lot of "Tyrants"; Khan, Ceasar, Qin and Vlad, but you can't ignore what they were able to accomplish. Once really has to wonder what we could do if we implore the same tactics in todays world.
All governments use force to assert their positions over those of the individuals that exist within those governments. What makes them any better than a single person doing the same? Aren't we still talking about doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people? One person running the show will get things done much more than a few hundred squabbling politicians.
No: fuck all tyrants and the horses they road in on, whether they're Stalin, Ghengis Khan or George II. America in 1776 and France in 1789 had revolutions to depose the tyrants that ruled them (Britain in 1640-60 too, but for some reason we invited his son back). What in my estimation we need is the end of all government, 'enlightened' or honestly tyrannical.
Pure Annarchy? I see that working for about a week at best.