An idea has been developing among some woefully misguided Americans that it would be good if the president, as the person vested with the authority of the executive branch, could be the sole decision maker about what the executive branch does — which appropriated funds to use and for what purpose (possibly outside the purpose written in law), which appropriations to ignore, which people to appoint or hire (even if unqualified), which people to separate, who to prosecute, what buildings to demolish or build or renovate, and more, without any obligation to follow laws enacted by the legislature, or orders issued by a judge.
These people think somehow that it would be netter for our country, the greatest democracy in the history of our species, if we had a president with the powers of a dictator. Congress specifying how funds are to be spent and how the executive is to behave? Overstepping, these people would say. A judge finding the executive violated the law and issuing an order to cease or compel some behavior? Activist judge, these people would say. Woefully misguided is an understatement. It wouldn’t be a democracy anymore.
In a democracy, the people decide who is governing on their behalf and what the rules are. This could be a direct democracy where the decisions are questions in the election, or an indirect democracy where the people elect representatives who then vote on actual rules.
in a dictatorship, the dictator decides what to do and isn’t obligated to follow any rules set by the legislature, or comply with any judicial orders.