The problem is that it’s more of a dictatorship now with Xi than it was after Deng. It’s not longer the best and brightest but those loyal to Xi. That’s how you got highly capable people like Li Keqiang sidelined and many others purged altogether on “corruption “ charges. A benevolent dictator can be beneficial for a country in crisis (the original Roman idea of a dictator which was a temporary position), like you could argue Deng was, but it’s not a good model for long-term governance.

"The problem is that it’s more of a dictatorship now with Xi than it was after Deng."

Despite what I said that's very true. Throughout history we've seen many dictators who've had both some degree of benevolence and the best interests of their states at heart only to be followed by tyrants or idiots (right, Rome's one example).

As you say, it’s not a good model for long-term governance. Unfortunately, benevolent dictators are a rare breed.

With China, the key question for the world is whether the country will become increasingly authoritarian and all that's likely to entail, or over time settle down and become more benign without major disruption, revolution and or war. The fact that authoritarianism seems to be on the rise generally doesn't bode well, methinks.

This is the key. The problem with a dictatorship has never been that they are inherently bad, but because they are extremely unreliable long term. Even a "good" dictator that does almost everything perfectly will only be around for so long, and a bad dictator is very likely around the corner.