I would actually contest this point. Under normal circumstances, one would never refer to a good ruler as cruel and oppressive, but under extreme circumstances, the cruelty and oppressive nature of a ruler can possibly lead to a better outcome than the alternatives available, and can even lead to the aversion of apocalyptic scenarios for a people. Such as existential warfare. It depends on the ruler, of course, and the pros and cons of their regime, but it’s not axiomatically impossible. The axiomatic truth is that cruelty and oppression are not good things, but people themselves, and particularly, leaders, are complicated and cannot be accurately evaluated by “Was he/she a cruel tyrant? If yes = bad”. It is rare in the normal course of governance that these very complicated leaders sprout up, but in the situations that are likely to attract the rise of a tyrant, things are usually already pretty bad and may end up benefiting from a firm hand. I would again stress that this is highly context dependent on the sum of the ruler’s effects on a country, and that most geopolitical situations do not call for this type of government.
4 Likes