Autocratic rule is the default for most of human history, I firmly believe we will return to it given time.
Power always seeks continual centralization, it is the inevitable outcome of politics.
I wonder if that's really true. Autocratic rule / centralization has been the norm in the supposed "civilized" world in recent history, once large population centers started. But most of human history is outside of that.
It's difficult to know due to its place in pre-history, but I wonder if the bulk of actual human history (or at least last 10,000 years or so) has been much more democratic and libertarian in its much smaller groups, and autocracy has only dominated once autocrats could accumulate overriding power. If you are leader of a group of 80 rather than a group of 80,000, it's much more difficult to force obedience. Your tribe isn't large enough for you to afford to hire professional soldiers/police, so no one is going to do shyt just because you ordered them to. No one would own any weapons that would allow them to intimidate everyone else as a whole group. Perhaps you can kick any one person's ass but you can't kick everyone's ass. So you have to have a much greater degree of consent from the people you "rule".
I would be willing to bet that autocracy as the default leadership style has only emerged once populations became so large that rulers could afford to hire significantly large forces of soldiers to enforce their will. Until then people would have been better at working out shyt together.