An autocrat is a ruler with absolute authority. So that would be like some of the 3rd world nations where there is an army general running the place how he wants with no elections. So you would say that they have an autocratic leadership. Is that any help to you?

That is a very tough question. I would need to know what country you are writing about.

I also think josh described the term "autocratic" correctly. It seems very similar to the greek noun "αυτοκράτωρ / aftokr'ator" which literally means 'emperor'. Emperor, which seems a derivative or at least related to the word 'empire' is '... a ruler with absolute authority'. More or less 'autocratic rule' was the governance model of major ancient and medieval empires as the ancient Egyptian empire, possibly the Babylonian, the Roman, the Byzantine and many other empires in ancient, medieval and post-renaissance history. If my assumption is correct (I am not a graduate of Political Science) the era of the autocratic governance ends for each nation after the incidence of establishment of democracy, of public voting, establishment of constitution and parliament. I am not aware if there is any nation in the 21st century lacking ALL of those for principles (namely democracy, voting, constitution and parliament) so that a single emperor may obtain "absolute authority". The term 'emperor though happens to be used still in some nations around the world in democratic states which maintain the 'title of the emperor' as a traditional political representative, definitely though without absolute authority against the parliament or the constitution.

It gets uncomfortable when you start thinking of certain countries. China is autocratic. But for the better good.