The words "tyranny" and "despotism", when applied to government, mean such government, where the ruler governs in accordance with his own personal wishes, rather than by following some principles, which are independent of his wishes.
"Tyranny" usually implies "cruelty", while "despotism" can be "benevolent". Thus a "cruel tyrant" could be "oppressing his people", while a "benevolent despot" could be governing his area of governance to the benefit of his people. But, in both the cases, the tyrant and the despot would be following their own wishes and not accountable to anybody but themselves ... and "history". It is also possible for the same ruler to be both an "oppressive tyrant" and a "benevolent despot", because some of his activities could be oppressive, while others beneficial to the people under his rule.
The word "democracy", on the other hand, suggests that the ruler is governing his area of governance not in accordance with his personal wishes, but by following "the Will of the People", for whom he is acting as a representative. But "the Will of the People" is, at most, a statistical concept, meaning that the majority of the people, who took part in an elections voted for a candidate from a small group of candidates presented to them. But, once elected, the ruler is faced with the same choices as any other ruler - he can either follow the principles of honest government and act as an impartial and competent administrator, or follow his own personal wishes and instincts and become an "oppressive tyrant" or a "benevolent despot". Once such democratic ruler is elected, "the Will of the People" comes into play only at the time of the elections, when the ruler will be either re-elected or replaced with another one.
We have seen this "democratic process" in the recent American presidential elections, in which a democratic ruler was re-elected for another term, because the majority of the electorate saw in him a "benevolent despot" rather than an "oppressive tyrant". While some might argue that G.W. Bush is not a "benevolent despot", but an "oppressive tyrant", because he had caused deaths of over 100,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority of the Americans, who took part in the elections, either did not see this important, or saw it as a justified and "benevolent" action.
And while there can be differences of opinion whether G.W. Bush is a "benevolent despot" or an "oppressive tyrant", in his first term of office he was certainly not an impartial and competent administrator, but followed his own personal wishes, rather than the principles of honest government.
But his re-election will be beneficial for Mankind, because, if he continues to follow his wishes, the results of his rule will be more destruction and bloodshed, and this will teach Mankind, that "democracy" is not enough to ensure competent and honest government. The only way to force those in government to become honest and competent administrators, rather than political tyrants and despots is to abandon Political Government and replace it with the Rule of Law.
And the meaning of the "Rule of Law" is that the rulers will govern their areas of governance not in accordance with their personal wishes, nor in accordance with their "political instincts", and not even in accordance with "the Will of the People" or anybody else's will, but in accordance with the Principles of Government by Truth, Honesty and Justice. And this will bring peace and security to all.