I very deliberately put good in quotes.

His tenure consisted of economic recovery from the economic crisis of 2001, the start of EU membership negotiations, and the reduction of military influence on politics. In late 2012, his government began peace negotiations with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) to end the Kurdish–Turkish conflict, negotiations which ended three years later. […] Erdoğan’s presidency has been marked by democratic backsliding and a shift towards authoritarianism.

Mugabe’s administration expanded healthcare and education. […] Pursuing decolonisation, Mugabe emphasised the redistribution of land controlled by white farmers to landless blacks; […] He was praised as a revolutionary hero of the African liberation struggle who helped free Zimbabwe from British colonialism, imperialism, and white minority rule. Critics accused Mugabe of being a dictator responsible for economic mismanagement and widespread corruption and human rights abuses, including anti-white racism, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Often “good” just means “ended the (civil) war (by killing lot of the opposing side), thus bringing economic stability and growth while rebuilding infrastructure and (propagandised) education.”

“Good person” might be a stretch, but plenty of autocrats come to power in situations where people’s real needs are not being met, and they are able to present a plausible-enough case that they ought to be given extraordinary powers in order to provide for them. Whether it’s a good person looking to sweep away a corrupt old system or a prospective dictator looking for a way to exploit vulnerability, the pathway can be much the same.