Thats spot on what I meant too

(in bold)
With Authoritarian (as the name suggest) the well bieng of the people is more or less dependant on 1 person or a certain group of people. While it may bring prosperity it may also bring oppression, depending on who rules.
Now to me the difference is that with Authoritarian governments, things happen quickly...bad governments are overthrown quickly but good governments fall down quickly too (like your point in single leader coups).
Democracy in the other hand works very slow. When good leaders are in place it will take time before they can be overtaken by bad leaders, but once bad leaders are there, it will also take alot of time before good leaders can be inplace again. (like whats happening to your government now

)
For me the formula is that in the begining stages (underdeveloped or developing nations) it is best to keep alot of Authoritarian system in the government and then slowly as the country develops and its people learn and educate themselves, establish a democratic system, over time. This is the quickest was for a country to get on its feet and stay there.
The flaw is that in the begining Authoritarian system, WHO will lead? It takes a good leader to start but with that system you are not guarenteed a good leader. So it is somewhat risky, but then again when you have a full democracy, not the best leaders may be chosen anyways since the people might not know(educated enough to see) who is the best for them.
Malaysia gets my vote for a study(model) of how Democracy can and should be established in a country without ALL of the exact ingredients as in the US or any other country for that matter.