In a way, it's not good. You could say that Hitler had a strong dictatorship, as did Stalin. Were they good societies? Not really.. Granted, Hitler brought Germany out of hyperinflation, and stabilised the country, but there's always the chance of a power trip. Also, with Stalin, nearly 50 million people were killed due to starvation and being killed by soldiers.

Whether a weak democracy is better though, is another question. I guess there's room for improvement? Can't really think of any benefits of a weak democracy.

I don't think that you can call a weak democracy a democracy at all since the citizens have no real role. A strong dictatorship can be good if the dictator can/does help the country but usually someone who is strong and powerful would ignore the welfare of the citizens.(history repeats itself doesn't it?) So the dictator would ignore the citizens while in a democracy more people's (if not all's) ideas would be taken into consideration. So they are both bad but a weak democracy would be better.

No a strong dictatorship is very oppressive, while a weak democracy (If I get your meaning right) is only as oppressive as people allow it to be.

A strong dictatorship is abusing the masses and makes them feel miserable.