A benevolent dictator can result in many efficiencies, but it can also come at the cost of greater expenditure on security and has many risks associated with it. One of the biggest risks is the dictator simply not knowing what is best for the country. Dictatorships tend to allow stupid plans to be implemented at a large scale with disastrous results. A number of communist countries can attest to that.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Who would enforce the binding of said constitution? Who would write it?
Alexander Hamilton seemed to agree with you, and also seems to have been proven right. The founders wrote ours, but aren't here to defend their work. Of course thing change with time, and Constitutions and laws in general have to have the flexibility to adapt to those changes.
Originally posted by normbenign Efficient, by limiting costs. No elections. Efficient by quick adjustments to law. Perhaps not as effective, due to the tendency of the public to rebel against what they consider unjust laws.
Limiting what costs specifically? The cost of holding elections is negligible.
Far from being efficient, autocratic governments tend to be inefficient due to the fact that government officials are not held accountable except by their superiors. This leads to a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy. And even if the autocrat in question is well-intended, actually implementing decisions is a different matter altogether from making them.