If organizations oppose holding elections, on what basis do they base
the that conclusion? Don't human-rights fundamentally depend on the
power of people to choose their own governments? What alternative
mechanism do they propose for creating a government that has the best
interests of is people in mind?
Experience is a hard teacher.
With a handful of exceptions, mostly British influenced (e.g. East Timor, India, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Israel) where there is a long tradition of representative democratic self-rule and/or a lot of hand holding from the outside world, almost every country that gains self-government, either from monarchy or colonial rule or some other non-democratic government, and immediately adopts a Western style multiparty democratic system for the first time swiftly degenerates into a coup, military rule, a dictatorship, or one party rule (see e.g. with most notable the years of democratic or pro-Western regime collapse into non-democracy or tyranny following attempted democratic rule: England (1648), France (1792), Venezuela (1812, 1830), Mexico (1823, 1910), Russia (1917), Germany (1919, 1933), Japan (1932), China (1949), Vietnam (1954), Pakistan (1958, 1971, 1977), Sudan (1958), Syria (1961), Zaire (1965), Nigeria (1966), Iraq (1968), Cambodia (1970), Ethiopia (1974), Iran (1979), Ivory Coast (ca. 1980; 1999); Egypt (1981; 2014), South Sudan (2013)).
Several of the few countries that didn't have a collapse of representative self-government the first time it was attempted, had, at a minimum, civil wars or insurgencies instead (see e.g. starting on the dates noted New Zealand (1845), the United States (1861), India (1947), Israel (1950s)).
These successor non-democratic governments, civil wars and insurgencies almost uniformly resulted in massive disregard for civil rights and gross human rights abuses.
Ultimately, representative democratic government is a means to an end, which is to get policies and government administration that meet the needs of the governed. After all, nobody has a personal, individual right to have their government operated to their liking, only a collectively shared process right to participate in democratic self-governance.
And, sometimes a country with strong democratic traditions using the democratic decisions of its own people as a proxy for wishes local residents to establish good policies and government administration (e.g. in Hong Kong) can produce better outcomes more of the time than the likely alternative of a failed attempt at democratic self-government, until such time as the local residents have a corps of senior civil servants and a sufficiently civically trained population to succeed at self-government without outside support or hand holding - ideally with a gradual transition of local control in some respects.
Similarly, there have been times in history when a benevolent monarch or dynasty of monarchs, or even brief rule by a military junta provides better tangible respect for human rights than the failed regime that would have arisen in an immediate transition to a Western style representative democracy.
The idea, typically, is to have a highly competent sovereign government or coalitions of sovereign governments serve as trustees of non-democratically governed countries until the country is in a position to transition to a sovereign representative democracy. Sometimes a few last strings of outside control (like Privy Council review of highest court decisions in a number of British Commonwealth countries) and continuation of the former symbolic monarchy, continue for a very long time even when a country is de facto independent.
Of course, when a government put in a position of trust is not democratic and well governed itself (e.g. Russia with respect to North Korea and East Germany, Indonesia in East Timor, and Morocco with respect to Western Sahara), the outcome may be rather dismal in the image of the country's imperfect overlord who is even less competent as a trustee for another country.