Final answer:
Authoritarian rulers in European countries and China can be justified by revolutionary principles, which argue that democratic selection of leaders may lead to dangerous outcomes and instability.
Step-by-step explanation:
In both European countries and China, the presence of authoritarian rulers can be justified by employing revolutionary principles. For example, in Portugal during the mid-20th century, the authoritarian prime minister António Salazar aimed to create a state governed by his own party, which allowed for economic and personal freedoms but restricted political challenges to the ruler. The justification behind this authoritarian rule was the belief that democratic selection of rulers could lead to dangerous outcomes, such as the rise of Nazi ideology or Soviet-style communism.
In the case of contemporary Egypt, the authoritarian ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi justified his unopposed rule by arguing that the people cannot be trusted to select appropriate leaders. This justification aligns with the idea that authoritarianism is necessary to prevent instability or the rise of extremist ideologies.
Overall, the presence of authoritarian rulers in European countries and China can be justified based on the belief that democratic processes may lead to undesirable outcomes and that a strong and centralized ruler is essential to maintain stability and protect the nation from internal and external threats.