The political consequences of authoritarian rule in economic activity

Alot of people tend to associate dictatorships with negative consequences in terms of a political spectrum. While it may be true that we live in the United States and democracy seems to work well for us when talking about long term economic growth, we must also realize that a dictator may not be such a bad idea economically. It may seem unfair to quote countries out of context, but perhaps we can take two countries very heavily influenced by dictators to maybe try and make sense of my theory. the first one is Libya and the very unpopular muhammadar Qaddafi. While Qaddafis rule was considered widely unpopular, the economic benefits within libya seemed  to suggest otherwise. the literacy rate was increasing, economic activity was increasing at a constant rate and libyans in general did well economically. However Libya alone doesnt stand as the only nation that did well in a dictatorship. Take for example Pakistan, under two seperate dictatorships,Ayub khans dictatorship is seen as the golden period of economic growth in Pakistan where economic activity was historically speaking taking a turn for the most positive gradient ever in the countries history. During general Musharaffs recent dictatorships, the economy yet again did better than democracies that both preceded it and followed up with it. What is it about dictatorships exactly that worked for these two countries? economic theories have suggested that perhaps the control of the countries economic resources (particular the monetary and fiscal policy) under one firm hand could prove wonders for a country that seems to be struggling. If all of this actually true,can an oppresive dictator mean golden economic activity ?