Unlike some of the failed states in the area, Saudi Arabia is a legitimate threat to the West. All the random abuse of their citizens is countered by a sportswashing campaign that includes Formula 1 races and boxing events to name a few. They are also investing heavily in afforestation and renewable energy, which will reduce their dependence on oil soon.
Resource gathering (oil, minerals, etc) only requires a few experts and many slaves to create wealth. A dictatorship works well in such a situation.
Green energy and other technology intensive industries require dynamic societies with well educated populations. Authoritarian regimes fail in this regard, industries die fast and wealth disappears.
Authoritarian regimes are designed top-down that limits the complexity of society and stifles innovation. Authoritarian regimes also fear an educated population further diminishing society value. A social democracy is in the opposite side of the spectrum, it is created bottom-up where citizens needs shape the government allowing for a richer more educated population.
Complex societies can and will produce better technology and creativity than simpler ones. So, authoritarian societies need an easy way to get money or they will be outcompeted by more open ones.
tldr;
Authoritarian -> simple society. Oil -> can be gathered by simple societies.
this simple/complex thing isn't actually a spectrum in anything but an over-simplified view.
In reality, many technical and mathematical advances have come out of countries that aren't democracies.
It would be a mistake to think Russia doesn't have highly advanced technical capabilities, for example. It successfully developed nuclear weapons before many democratic societies could have.
Because of their strategic importance they don't just get away with murdering journalists on foreign ground, spying on politicians and activists all over the world (including US citizens), spying on US companies (as the current article mentions), and all the acts of terror they committed in their region, or even supported against the US. They are actively supported as a prized ally to the West.
As long as they have the billions of dollars to spend buying arms from the West, or selling oil, and any other business they may do together, and any other strategic role SA fulfills now, they will get away with anything.
And let's not kid ourselves. It's not like countries in the West don't imprison without any due process or even torture when it suits them. People spent decades imprisoned and tortured just for having the wrong name. So expecting even some simulated indignation from some of these civilized countries may just be setting yourself up for disappointment. They're actively supporting SA and explicitly some of their actions as a matter of public record.
SA is an ally to the Western powers, not a threat. The US government's top priority on Sept 2001 (when a group of Saudi royal family members killed thousands of US people on territory) was protecting the (oil man) President's friends (oil company colleagues) in the Saudi monarchy.
It's billionaires (in SA, USA, and China (where the Parliament is full of billionaires) vs everyone, not East vs West.
