About poliical leaders

Hey guys,
Today in LA lesson, this question suddenly popped into my mind. Are this dictators that we learnt about today considered evil for all the inhumane acts they had commited suck as executing people who opposed them? Or did they really do this for the country's benefit. Let me share with you the possibilities and you make your own judgement.
Firstly, are the acts really for the better of the country? Are there other means to try to influence this people to agree with their ideas? However, of course, their mentality back then as probably different from ours, that has to be said. If they had adopted a more humane approach, would their respective countries have reached the heights that they reached under the control of these leaders? They might not have. With people opposing the leaders, the leaders would be under threat and therefore might not be able to carry out the acts that improves the country.
Compared to the present, yes, this leaders can be considered cruel. However, remember Lee Kuan Yew? People that publicly opposed him were jailed. Yes, jailing is indeed much less severe than execution, but the concept is there. People that oppose leaders would be punished. Was Lee Kuan Yew considered evil? No, he is considered one of the country's great leaders and I agree with that. Probably the punishment back then was just at that kind of degree, but both would have the same effect. The civilians would not dare to publicly oppose the leaders.
So were the leaders back then really considered evil and inhumane? You make your own personal judgement and whatever it is, remember it is based on your own thoughts and that you would definitely be able to put up a strong argument on why your point is correct.
Jeremy signing off,
Bye