Well, if we're going to get pedantic, "transitory" would also include ending at the heat death of the universe. You didn't use the word "all" but it seemed like a fair reading of your post.
"Elective Monarchies are a transitory state" has subject-verb agreement problems, too, but now I'm just being spiteful :)
Are you trying to say that all elective monarchies have a supposed similar political composition that Putin's Russia matches better than it does a fascist dictatorship? Because otherwise, the point you're attempting to make is excessively obscure.
This entire thread has wandered off into the weeds of arguing about hair-splitting terminology differences. I'm not seeing that you have a high road to stand on here, to mangle a few metaphors. What is the difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship? Plenty of kings have gained power by killing anybody who would oppose them. Monarchy can be put on a sliding scale between absolute and constitutional. . . . Heck, back in ancient Rome they called the guy they appointed leader "dictator," but these days aren't dictators required to seize power? Cf. terrorist vs. freedom fighter.
You started out with a good point but now there's a bunch of goalpost-moving going on. "it's a monarchy" "monarchies are just dictatorships" "what about elective ones" "those aren't real governments" "what about this counterexample" "go away"