Government by a single person or by a junta or other group that is not responsible to the people or their elected representatives.
What Sentamu has said is:
"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are.
"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."
Of course if the government is not able to have redefined very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time, women would never have been allowed to vote, nor would the workers. There would not be social care through benefits or the National Health Service. Jews would not have been allowed to sit in Parliament, nor would Parliament be able to do away with male primogeniture for the heirs of future sovereigns as has been agreed by the Commonwealth which is legislation that now been introduced.
The fact that equal marriage is being put out for public consultation also flies in the face of accusations of dictatorship accusations, which can also be defined as "absolute or despotic control or power". Somehow you know that a depot is not going to put something out to consultation, as that is not absolute power. No a despotic dictator is liable to just make a change or prevent one on his say so, rather like what Sentuma is trying to do through what he says himself.
So just who is acting like a dictator by having only their view and no other view? Eyes toward the See of York perhaps.