It depends on what speakers wish to communicate; clarity in communication is important. If someone uses exclusive (or inclusive) terms in the course of a discussion, it's not unreasonable to assume they are talking about something to exclusion (or inclusion) because that is what was said. Assuming others mean what they say is something of a default in human interactions since it's more or less necessary for successful communication. Easier said than done, since what a term means is a fluid cultural construct and moving target. It is enough to clarify what we intended as speakers when others misread what we meant. A simple "oh, I don't intend to limit the consideration to any particular type of person" suffices to clarify.
Regardless, I think intended point is being missed here - and that's how a single ruler cannot be inclusive. A single human cannot adequately represent or make decisions for all humans, inherently. Again, that this is rarely questioned signals some of the major problems with the idea especially when coupled with the common cultural assumption that only one type of human can be the ruler. That one type of human cannot represent all humans because there are oceanically vast amounts of experiences they will not and cannot ever have. Anyone actually wise enough to be worthy of being a dictatorial philosopher would know this and immediately abdicate the position.
