-->
@Swagnarok
The problem with what you wrote, I guess, is that (a). it sounds like more simping for authoritarian strongmen with unchecked power that's screwed half the world over already;
Strongmen (monarchs, essentially) can cause good or evil. They are often backed by historical forces which they ride to prominence and must navigate them. Julius Caesar is a great historical example of this. People often say he destroyed the Republic, but the Republic had already destroyed itself by that point. Caesar was just driven by the spirit of the time, and dealt the deathblow to a sclerotic, dysfunctional political order before it brought down his entire civilization.
To understand what it means to check power, I highly recommend Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, his true Magnum Opus which was a critical influence on America's own Constitution. It's difficult to sum up in a forum post, but what he argues is essentially that there are a few critical moments during which a republic can be 'recalibrated', and then they tick along like clocks, driven by historical forces which will inevitably wipe out any balance that you manage to create. These 'unbalancing' moments are always dangerous times for republics, where your system is vulnerable to being subsumed by a foreign invader, sinking into despotism, or falling apart altogether if an opportunity to recalibrate fails to appear or if it is recalibrated incorrectly.
(b). it sounds like a completely passive and fatalistic way of thinking that would have you do nothing to improve the world until this purported messianic figure showed up.
Everything we do in life is constrained by conditions and currents far beyond our control. You can call it fate if you want. For most of us, the fullest way to resist is martyrdom, but few have the will to follow through. So what appears inexorable often becomes inexorable, in most cases.