The other answers put focus on the static picture (definition of the term "beneficial"; moral) and the dynamic/temporal picture (stability of dictatorship subject to socio-economic forces). I might also point out that there is a spatial picture.
Economists like to talk about opportunity cost/gain, meaning that it is not useful to assess an investment alternative as more or less absolutely good or bad. But rather it only makes sense to assess investments relative to each other or at least in comparison to an (almost) risk free investment. And these may be different across markets and may change over time. It just doesn't make any sense to compare today's rates of return on an investment with those that were possible in the 50's of the last century because the business opportunities that were common in the 50's simply don't exist anymore today. That's not a matter of theory but only good old reality.
In my opinion the same holds true with political systems. When arguing about Erdogan's regime it is pointless to compare it to any theoretical alternatives if it is simply infeasible to assume that there could be any other political system built around the same society of people with the same mindset. And so it is also pointless to compare Turkey with central Europe or the US because people from Turkey can't just go to CE or the US to make up some exile government business for Turkey. Likewise experience shows that it is highly unlikely that a dictatorship can simply be replaced by some sort of "peaceful revolution". Political overturn is pure violence, so the option is purely imaginary.
And finally one other thing that is highly underestimated is the cultural horizon. People living in Turkey might just don't know what they are deprived of under Erdogan. Equally well, we in central Europe or the US etc., might not know what we are missing about the advantages of Erdogan's regime. Freedom means responsibility, and many people are overwhelmed by the responsibilities that come with capitalism and political, economic and scientific progess. They are more than happy to bury their head in the sand. At which point we are, again, where there is no practical political investment opportunity to compare with.
For the records, I sincerely don't believe that I would be happy in Turkey or any other islamic country, but, as the saying goes, YMMV.
That being said, it is clear that people like Erdogan and Putin deliberately play their evil games with this ambivalence of political value and take it as the foundation of their disinformation. So as I see it, people in democratic countries have basically two disjoint belief alternatives:
1) succumb to the informational power of the dictators and think they could play the appeasement policy game
2) decide in favour of their own firm conviction in what they do is right and what the others do is wrong, and accept a certain probability that in fact they could themselves be wrong
I can hardly imagine how there could be anything inbetween. Since there is no complete information, it is a matter of who is more determined to win the battle for power over their own minds.