All of them, take your pick. If you are using violence or coercion against peaceful people to get your way then that would be tyrannical, no political process of voting or delegates could dissolve this, it can only obscure it.

As far as the practical distinctions between something like a democracy and a monarchy, we can evaluate the game theory of incentives and power structures play out (How a dictatorship would be distinct from a monarchy seems blurry, I'm only going to address a monarchy to keep things simple).

In a monarchy the king has an incentive to preserve the wealth of the nation for their grandchildren, the future monarchs. In a system of elected representatives like we have, the incentive is to abuse the system as much as possible to maximize returns over a short term limit. There are several examples of kings that proved to rule better than democracies/republics have shown, the king of Norway is well respected to this day, Serbias monarchy is generally held in high regard too, the Brits love their monarchs but they have limited power to affect change at the political level. Contrasted with democracies, which always trend towards social programs, taxation, war, and destruction in due course, Greece, Rome, us.