Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-19792House OversightOther

Essay on ‘good autocrats’ and political legitimacy in the Middle East

The passage is a philosophical commentary on autocratic rule, mentioning several Middle Eastern leaders but provides no concrete allegations, transactions, dates, or actionable leads. It lacks specifi Discusses the concept of ‘good autocrats’ and their role in societal development. Names King Mohammed VI (Morocco), King Abdullah (Jordan), Sultan Qaboos bin Said (Oman), Hosni Mubar Contrasts percei

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #032196
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a philosophical commentary on autocratic rule, mentioning several Middle Eastern leaders but provides no concrete allegations, transactions, dates, or actionable leads. It lacks specifi Discusses the concept of ‘good autocrats’ and their role in societal development. Names King Mohammed VI (Morocco), King Abdullah (Jordan), Sultan Qaboos bin Said (Oman), Hosni Mubar Contrasts percei

Tags

authoritarianismpolitical-theorygovernancemiddle-easthouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
26 Mill’s proposition that persecution to preserve the existing order can never be justified remains theoretical and may never be achieved; even democratic governments must coerce their citizens for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, the ruler who moves society to a more advanced stage of development is not only good but also perhaps the most necessary of historical actors—to the extent that history is determined by freewilled individuals as well as by larger geographical and economic forces. And the good autocrat, I submit, is not a contradiction in terms; rather, he stands at the center of the political questions that continuously morphing political societies face. GOOD AUTOCRATS there are. For example, in the Middle East, monarchy has found a way over the decades and centuries to engender a political legitimacy of its own, allowing leaders like King Mohammed VI in Morocco, King Abdullah in Jordan and Sultan Qaboos bin Said in Oman to grant their subjects a wide berth of individual liberties without fear of being overthrown. Not only is relative freedom allowed, but extremist politics and ideologies are unnecessary in these countries. It is only in modernizing dictatorships like Syria and Libya—which in historical and geographical terms are artificial constructions and whose rulers are inherently illegitimate—where brute force and radicalism are required to hold the state together. To be sure, Egypt’s Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ben Ali neither ran police states on the terrifying scale of Libya’s Qaddafi and Syria’s Assad nor stifled economic progress with such alacrity. But while Mubarak and Ben Ali left their countries in conditions suitable for the emergence of stable democracy, there is little virtue that can be attached to their rule. The economic liberalizations of recent years were haphazard rather than well planned. Their countries’ functioning institutions exist for reasons that go back centuries: Egypt and Tunisia have been states in

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.