But he's got no, as far as I can see he's got no convincing argument that democracy will do better, but that doesn't matter because he thinks that the decisive criticism of enlightened despotism is that it won't improve the moral or intellectual well-being of the citizens, but if people are excluded from political decision making, they will have no incentive to educate themselves or morally improve themselves, or he thinks if they do, if a despot does allow for the moral improvement of the citizens, then citizens will no longer accept despotism so that despotism is in a way self-defeating here and if it   one of the proper functions of government it can't survive.