Chiu, Yvonne and Robert S. Taylor. "The Self-Extinguishing Despot: Millian Democratization". The Journal of Politics, Vol.73, No.4 (2011): 1239-1250.

Chiu, Yvonne and Robert S. Taylor. "The Self-Extinguishing Despot: Millian Democratization". The Journal of Politics, Vol.73, No.4 (2011): 1239-1250.

• The authors condemn what they see as a growing consensus within the scholarly community on Mill that his views on colonialism are entirely racist and dehumanizing to non-Europeans. Drs. Chiu and Taylor would argue that although his views were heavily shaped by racist assumptions, ultimately they form a coherent idea of the correct transition into democratic rule in a way that also applies to colonized peoples (1239).
• Mill makes some exception in his rule for democracy in the case of 'barbarian peoples', where he accepts that what is necessary is a despotic leaders -- like Akbar, or Peter the Great -- who will improve society to lay the way towards future democracy and self-governance (1240).
• Importantly, despotism can only be justified when the end goal is improvement and the subject people are incapable of improving themselves. A tyranny over a civilized people, on the contrary, is among the greatest evils (1241).
• For Mill, societies exist in evolutionary stages which must be advanced forward through the cultivation of the public virtues required for the next stage. All men begin in a state of violence, requiring a strong rule to force upon them the virtues of obedience and patient industry, which bring peace and prosperity (1241). The rule must then take steps to introduce laws and forcibly progress society into the next developmental stage, preferably by changing the agricultural system from slavery to peasant smallholders -- which encourages prudence and self-management (1242).
• Although the virtues learned from the previous transitions are important, the final step before a society is culturally prepared to handle self-governing democracy is for the enlightened despot to inculcate a hatred of tyranny and a popular nationalism in the population. When the first is directed against petty tyrants, like local nobility, then it does not directly undermine rule and secures future democracy. The second allows citizens to think about larger interests and prepares them to engage in true democratic deliberations, especially if it is inculcated through the formation of a parliamentary body (1243).
• Mill proposes to create a society and body politic in which democracy can take place requires both institutional reform and character reform, creating both the basic structural framework in which a democracy can take place and creating a citizenry intelligent and virtuous enough to form and maintain such a democracy (1244).
• The chance that an enlightened despot would ever come about who would be willing to make these self-containing reforms seems unlikely, and Mill considers in blind luck that it has ever occurred. Mill suggest the possibility that competition between elites and the monarch would result in reforms that propel society forward and are in the monarchy's short-term interests, but he again says this is unlikely (1244). The most feasible trajectory towards democratic self-government is therefore through colonialism and imperialism, which can be controlled (1245).
• There are obviously many potential issues with advocating colonialism, and it seems that colonial empires might be even less motivated to put the mechanisms of self-rule in place. However, Mill counters by claiming that the guilty of failing this responsibility would be so crushing that it would have to be accomplished. Furthermore, he believes that technocrats assigned to the position would be better than the potentially exploitative ministers of parliament (1245). 
• His assessment of colonial peoples and the relationships between colonial governors and oppressed peoples is particularly troubling since he compares the relationship to that between parents and children. Yet it is difficult to see why an alien ruler with no connection to the ruled would treat them as children, or even why they would treat them better than a native despot would (1246).
• Even applied to actual British colonial policy in India, Mill's ideas about enlightened colonialism were met with abject failure. His progressive attempt to create classes of Indian smallholders in Bengal was scuttled by the misinterpretation of the role of the zamindar, resulting in the creation of a parasitic landlord class which only further impoverished peasants (1246).
• Mill also expresses interesting and nuanced ideas in regards to his disappointment with the British government in India. His primary critique is that they have enhanced the position and despotism of native princes, therefore encouraging the despotic traits which they ought to abolish. He also expresses distrust of many officials, saying that they do not display the sympathy required for colonial rule (1247).
• Mill believes that these failures stems from the British instituting the wrong kind of colonial administration. He would recommend its replacement with a technocratic body selected by an independent body dedicated towards improvement and self-rule. This would be in contrast to the selection of governors by parliament, who he believes are captive to religious zealots and economic interests (1248).
• The solution to the ravages of exploitative democratic imperialism do not, however, have a good answer in Mill's experience. The East India Company, which Mill holds up as a potential example of technocratic government, would require some form of oversight. How Mill reconciles between the two evils of exploitive democratic imperialism and the petty despotism of native rulers is unclear (1248).