I quite agree, though possibly not for the same reason.
The purpose of good government is to provide a civil society, one in which the people can live their lives generally unmolested by the government, with security of property and individual rights.
Such a system is not inherently incompatible with absolute monarchy, and it is also not always provided by a democracy where people elect their rulers, as we can see around us every day.
The basic reason the idea of civil society and rule of law have become so entangled with the idea of democracy, when they are not inherently the same, is that civil society and rule of law under an absolute monarch requires an unusually wise, able and good king. Even if he isn’t seduced by the corruption of absolute power, he IS going to die, and the chance that his successor will be as good is pretty much nil.
Democracy is so far the only system of government that has been proven to be able to maintain civil society and rule of law for any significant period of time.
Yes, a monarchy is only as good as the current monarch, but with dynasties, you at least usually had a monarch who had been prepared for governing from youth, and not a rank amateur stepping into the office. Also, they had the combined wisdom of their families to draw on to advise them, so as not to keep making the same mistakes over and over, like democratic governments sometimes do. They had a longer learning curve as well, so a bad king in year one might be a pretty good king in year fifteen of his reign.
Still, there can’t be any real protection for the liberties of the people against a monarch with sufficient power. You’ll end up relying on the monarch’s conscience, which is just a bad bet to make in general. However, with the socialists, fascists, and other thugs, you know for certain that you can’t rely on them to rule according to a good conscience, so the monarchy is better choice in the end anyway.