Whether we are interpreting “Mulk Jabiry” as referring to a form of rule imposed by an external force (which is linguistically perhaps the best meaning, as it is similar to a cast or a brace being used to straighten a broken limb), or we understand it to simply mean a ruling by means of force; ultimately we come to the same conclusion. It means rule without popular support; and any rule without domestic support, must derive support from external sources.
This has generally been the case with dictatorial rulers; either they have a broad base of domestic popularity (and thus do not technically rule by force, though they may be brutal), or they are clients of foreign powers. For example, Mussolini was a client of Hitler; Hitler was extremely popular. In North Korea, even defectors admit that Kim Jong-un is backed by the majority of the population. Broad-based popular backing necessarily means that, just because a regime may be harsh, it does not depend exclusively upon force to remain in power.
Now, another issue in the age of global capitalist imperialism is the reality that a ruler who has no popular support may be able to defy the will of his population by means of force, but he cannot defy the will of multinational corporations and financial institutions by force. He could potentially do it with popular support, but he cannot do it by force. This means that any ruler without sufficient popular support will only be able to maintain his position by means of the approval of international capital. That approval is conditional upon his obedience. So, we return again to the inevitable reality of external control when we are talking about mulk jabiry.
#الملك_الجبري
#Mulk_Jabryy