Legitimacy

(political)

In polit ical science, legitimacy is t he right and accept ance of an aut horit y, usually a governing
law or a regime. Whereas authority denot es a specific posit ion in an est ablished government , t he
t erm legitimacy denot es a syst em of government —wherein government denot es "sphere of
influence". An aut horit y viewed as legit imat e oft en has t he right and just ificat ion t o exercise
power. Polit ical legit imacy is considered a basic condit ion for governing, wit hout which a
government will suffer legislat ive deadlock(s) and collapse. In polit ical syst ems where t his is not
t he case, unpopular régimes survive because t hey are considered legit imat e by a small, influent ial
élit e.[1] In Chinese polit ical philosophy, since t he hist orical period of t he Zhou Dynast y (1046–256
BC), t he polit ical legit imacy of a ruler and government was derived from t he Mandat e of Heaven,
and unjust rulers who lost said mandat e t herefore lost t he right t o rule t he people.
John Locke, who argued that consent of the governed confers political legitimacy

In moral philosophy, t he t erm legitimacy is oft en posit ively int erpret ed as t he normat ive st at us
conferred by a governed people upon t heir governors' inst it ut ions, offices, and act ions, based
upon t he belief t hat t heir government 's act ions are appropriat e uses of power by a legally
const it ut ed government .[2]

The Enlight enment -era Brit ish social philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) said t hat polit ical
legit imacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of t he governed: "The argument of
t he [Second] Treatise is t hat t he government is not legit imat e unless it is carried on wit h t he
consent of t he governed."[3] The German polit ical philosopher Dolf St ernberger said t hat "
[l]egit imacy is t he foundat ion of such government al power as is exercised, bot h wit h a
consciousness on t he government 's part t hat it has a right t o govern, and wit h some recognit ion
by t he governed of t hat right ".[4] The American polit ical sociologist Seymour Mart in Lipset said
t hat legit imacy also "involves t he capacit y of a polit ical syst em t o engender and maint ain t he
belief t hat exist ing polit ical inst it ut ions are t he most appropriat e and proper ones for t he
societ y".[5] The American polit ical scient ist Robert A. Dahl explained legit imacy as a reservoir: so
long as t he wat er is at a given level, polit ical st abilit y is maint ained, if it falls below t he required
level, polit ical legit imacy is endangered.[1]

Types

Legit imacy is "a value whereby somet hing or someone is recognized and accept ed as right and
proper".[6] In polit ical science, legit imacy usually is underst ood as t he popular accept ance and
recognit ion by t he public of t he aut horit y of a governing régime, whereby aut horit y has polit ical
power t hrough consent and mut ual underst andings, not coercion. The t hree t ypes of polit ical
legit imacy described by German sociologist Max Weber are t radit ional, charismat ic, and rat ional-
legal:

Tradit ional legit imacy derives from societ al cust om and habit t hat emphasize t he hist ory of
t he aut horit y of t radit ion. Tradit ionalist s underst and t his form of rule as hist orically accept ed,
hence it s cont inuit y, because it is t he way societ y has always been. Therefore, t he inst it ut ions
of t radit ional government usually are hist orically cont inuous, as in monarchy and t ribalism.
 Charismat ic legit imacy derives from t he ideas and personal charisma of t he leader, a person
whose aut horit at ive persona charms and psychologically dominat es t he people of t he societ y
t o agreement wit h t he government 's régime and rule. A charismat ic government usually
feat ures weak polit ical and administ rat ive inst it ut ions, because t hey derive aut horit y from t he
persona of t he leader, and usually disappear wit hout t he leader in power. However, if t he
charismat ic leader has a successor, a government derived from charismat ic legit imacy might
cont inue.

Rat ional-legal legit imacy derives from a syst em of inst it ut ional procedure, wherein
government inst it ut ions est ablish and enforce law and order in t he public int erest . Therefore, it
is t hrough public t rust t hat t he government will abide t he law t hat confers rat ional-legal
legit imacy.[7]

Forms

Egyptian divine authority Horus as a falcon

Numinous legitimacy …
In a t heocracy, government legit imacy derives from t he spirit ual aut horit y of a god or a goddess.

In ancient Egypt (c. 3150 BC), t he legit imacy of t he dominion of a Pharaoh (god–king) was
t heologically est ablished by doct rine t hat posit ed t he pharaoh as t he Egypt ian pat ron god
Horus, son of Osiris.
The coat of arms of the Holy See, the seat of Papal government

In t he Roman Cat holic Church, t he priest hood derives it s legit imacy from a divine source; t he
Roman Magist erium dogmat ically t eaches t hat Jesus Christ designat ed St . Pet er t he supreme
and infallible head of t he ent ire Christ ian Church, and t hus each bishop of Rome is sanct ified,
legit imat e, and possesses t hese charisms as well.

Civil legitimacy
…

One measurement of civil legitimacy is who has access to the vote, including women are able to vote

The polit ical legit imacy of a civil government derives from agreement among t he aut onomous
const it uent inst it ut ions—legislat ive, judicial, execut ive—combined for t he nat ional common good.
One way civil societ y grant s legit imacy t o government s is t hrough public elect ions. There are
also t hose who refut e t he legit imacy offered by public elect ions, point ing out t hat t he amount
of legit imacy public elect ions can grant depends significant ly on t he elect oral syst em
conduct ing t he elect ions. In t he Unit ed St at es, t his issue has surfaced around how vot ing is
impact ed by gerrymandering,[8] t he Unit ed St at es Elect oral College's abilit y t o produce winners
by minorit y rule and discouragement of vot er t urnout out side of Swing st at es,[9] and t he repeal
of part of t he Vot ing Right s Act in 2013.[10] Anot her challenge t o t he polit ical legit imacy offered
by elect ions is whet her or not marginalized groups such as women or t hose who are incarcerat ed
are allowed t o vot e.

Civil legit imacy can be grant ed t hrough different measures for account abilit y[11] t han vot ing, such
as financial t ransparency[12] and st ake-holder account abilit y. In t he int ernat ional syst em anot her
met hod for measuring civil legit imacy is t hrough account abilit y t o int ernat ional human right s
norms.

In an effort t o det ermine what makes a government legit imat e, t he Cent er for Public Impact
launched a project t o hold a global conversat ion about legit imacy st at ing, invit ing cit izens,
academics and government s t o part icipat e.[13] The organizat ion also publishes case st udies t hat
consider t he t heme of legit imacy as it applies t o project s in a number of different count ries
including Brist ol, Lebanon and Canada.[14]

"Good" governance vs "bad" governance

…
The Unit ed Nat ions Human Right s Office of t he High Commission (OHCHR) est ablished st andards
of what is considered "good governance" t hat include t he key at t ribut es t ransparency,
responsibilit y, account abilit y, part icipat ion and responsiveness (t o t he needs of t he people).[15]

Input, output and throughput legitimacy …

Assessing t he polit ical legit imacy of a government can be done by looking at t hree different
aspect s of which a government can derive legit imacy. Frit z Scharpf int roduced t wo normat ive
crit eria, which are out put legit imacy, i.e. t he effect iveness of policy out comes for people and
input legit imacy, t he responsiveness t o cit izen concerns as a result of part icipat ion by t he
people. A t hird normat ive crit erion was added by Vivien Schmidt , who analyzes legit imacy also in
t erms of what she calls t hroughput , i.e. t he governance processes t hat happen in bet ween input
and out put .

Negative and positive legitimacy

…
Abulof dist inguishes bet ween negat ive polit ical legit imacy (NPL), which is about t he object of
legit imat ion (answering what is legit imat e), and posit ive polit ical legit imacy (PPL), which is about
t he source of legit imat ion (answering who is t he 'legit imat or'). NPL is concerned wit h
est ablishing where t o draw t he line bet ween good and bad; PPL wit h who should be drawing it in
t he first place. From t he NPL perspect ive, polit ical legit imacy emanat es from appropriat e
act ions; from a PPL perspect ive, it emanat es from appropriat e act ors. In t he social cont ract
t radit ion, Hobbes and Locke focused on NPL (st ressing securit y and libert y, respect ively), while
Rousseau focused more on PPL ("t he people" as t he legit imat or). Arguably, polit ical st abilit y
depends on bot h forms of legit imacy.[16]

Instrumental and substantive legitimacy

…
Weber's underst anding of legit imacy rest s on shared values, such as t radit ion and rat ional-
legalit y. But policies t hat aim at (re-)const ruct ing legit imacy by improving t he service delivery or
'out put ' of a st at e oft en only respond t o shared needs.[17] Therefore, subst ant ive sources of
legit imacy need t o be dist inguished from more inst rument al ones.[17] Instrumental legitimacy
rest s on "t he rat ional assessment of t he usefulness of an aut horit y ..., describing t o what ext ent
an aut horit y responds t o shared needs. Inst rument al legit imacy is very much based on t he
perceived effect iveness of service delivery. Conversely, substantive legitimacy is a more
abst ract normat ive judgment , which is underpinned by shared values. If a person believes t hat an
ent it y has t he right t o exercise social cont rol, he or she may also accept personal
disadvant ages."[17]

Perceived legitimacy …
Est ablishing legit imacy is not simply t ransact ional; service provision, elect ions and rule of law do
not aut omat ically grant legit imacy. St at e legit imacy rest s on cit izens’ percept ions and
expect at ions of t he st at e, and t hese are co-const ruct ed bet ween st at e act ors and cit izens.[18]
What legit imises a st at e is also cont ext ually specific. McCullough et al. (2020) show t hat in
different count ries, provision of different services build st at e legit imacy. In Nepal public wat er
provision was most associat ed wit h st at e legit imacy, while in Pakist an it was healt h services.[18]

Sources
Max Weber, who argued that societies are politically cyclical

Max Weber proposed t hat societ ies behave cyclically in governing t hemselves wit h different
t ypes of government al legit imacy. That democracy was unnecessary for est ablishing legit imacy,
a condit ion t hat can be est ablished wit h codified laws, cust oms, and cult ural principles, not by
means of popular suffrage. That a societ y might decide t o revert from t he legit imat e
government of a rat ional–legal aut horit y t o t he charismat ic government of a leader; e.g., t he Nazi
Germany of Adolf Hit ler, Fascist It aly under Benit o Mussolini, and Francoist Spain under General
Francisco Franco.

Mattei Dogan
The French polit ical scient ist Mat t ei Dogan's cont emporary int erpret at ion of Weber's t ypes of
polit ical legit imacy (t radit ional, charismat ic, legal-rat ional) proposes t hat t hey are concept ually
insufficient t o comprehend t he complex relat ionships t hat const it ut e a legit imat e polit ical
syst em in t he 21st cent ury.[19] Moreover, Dogan proposed t hat t radit ional aut horit y and
charismat ic aut horit y are obsolet e as forms of cont emporary government ; e.g., t he Islamic
Republic of Iran (est . 1979) rule by means of t he priest ly Koranic int erpret at ions by t he Ayat ollah
Ruhollah Khomeini. That t radit ional aut horit y has disappeared in t he Middle East ; t hat t he rule-
proving except ions are Islamic Iran and Saudi Arabia. Furt hermore, t he t hird Weber t ype of
polit ical legit imacy, rat ional-legal aut horit y, exist s in so many permut at ions no longer allow it t o
be limit ed as a t ype of legit imat e aut horit y.

Forms of legitimate government

In det ermining t he polit ical legit imacy of a syst em of rule and government , t he t erm proper—
political legitimacy—is philosophically an essent ially cont est ed concept t hat facilit at es
underst anding t he different applicat ions and int erpret at ions of abst ract , qualit at ive, and
evaluat ive concept s such as "art ", "social just ice", et cet era, as applied in aest het ics, polit ical
philosophy, t he philosophy of hist ory, and t he philosophy of religion.[20] Therefore, in defining t he
polit ical legit imacy of a syst em of government and rule, t he t erm "essent ially cont est ed
concept " indicat es t hat a key t erm (communism, democracy, const it ut ionalism, et c.) has
different meanings wit hin a given polit ical argument . Hence, t he int ellect ually rest rict ive polit ics
of dogmat ism ("My answer is right , and all ot hers are wrong"), scept icism ("I don't know what is
t rue, and I even doubt my own opinion"), and eclect icism ("Each meaning gives a part ial view, so
t he more meanings t he bet t er") are inappropriat e philosophic st ances for managing a polit ical
t erm t hat has more t han one meaning[21] (see Walt er Bryce Gallie).

Est ablishing what qualifies as a legit imat e form of government cont inues t o be a t opic of great
philosophical cont roversy. Forms of legit imat e government are posit ed t o include:

Communism, where t he legit imacy of a Communist st at e derives from having won a civil war, a
revolut ion, or from having won an elect ion such as t he Presidency of Salvador Allende (1970–
73) in Chile; t hus, t he act ions of t he Communist government are legit imat e, aut horised by t he
people. In t he early 20t h cent ury, Communist part ies based t he argument s support ing t he
legit imacy of t heir rule and government upon t he scient ific nat ure of Marxism (see dialect ical
mat erialism).
Const it ut ionalism. where t he modern polit ical concept of const it ut ionalism est ablishes t he
law as supreme over t he privat e will, by int egrat ing nat ionalism, democracy, and limit ed
government . The polit ical legit imacy of const it ut ionalism derives from popular belief and
accept ance t hat t he act ions of t he government are legit imat e because t hey abide by t he law
codified in t he polit ical const it ut ion. The polit ical scient ist Carl Joachim Friedrich (1901–1984)
said t hat , in dividing polit ical power among t he organs of government , const it ut ional law
effect ively rest rains t he act ions of t he government [22] (see checks and balances).

Democracy, where government legit imacy derives from t he popular percept ion t hat t he
elect ed government abides by democrat ic principles in governing, and t hus is legally
account able t o it s people.[22]

Fascism, where in t he 1920s and t he 1930s it based it s polit ical legit imacy upon t he
argument s of t radit ional aut horit y; respect ively, t he German Nat ional Socialist s and t he It alian
Fascist s claimed t hat t he polit ical legit imacy of t heir right t o rule derived from philosophically
denying t he (popular) polit ical legit imacy of elect ed liberal democrat ic government s. During
t he Weimar Republic (1918–1933), t he polit ical philosopher Carl Schmit t (1888–1985)—whose
legal work as t he "Crown Jurist of t he Third Reich" promot ed fascism and deconst ruct ed
liberal democracy—addressed t he mat t er in Legalität und Legitimität (Legalit y and Legit imacy,
1932), an ant i-democrat ic polemic t reat ise t hat asked: "How can parliament ary government
make for law and legalit y, when a 49 per cent minorit y accept s as polit ically legit imat e t he
polit ical will of a 51 per cent majorit y?"[23]

Monarchy, where t he divine right of kings est ablishes t he polit ical legit imacy of t he rule of t he
monarch (king or queen); legit imacy also derives from t he popular percept ion (t radit ion and
cust om) and accept ance of t he monarch as t he right ful ruler of nat ion and count ry.
Cont emporarily, such divine-right legit imacy is manifest in t he absolut e monarchy of t he House
of Saud (est . 1744), a royal family who have ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since t he 18t h
cent ury. Moreover, const it ut ional monarchy is a variant form of monarchic polit ical legit imacy
which combines t radit ional aut horit y and legal–rat ional aut horit y, by which means t he monarch
maint ains nat ionalist unit y (one people) and democrat ic administ rat ion (a polit ical const it ut ion).
[24]

See also

Delegit imizat ion

Governance failure

Group decision-making
Mandat e (polit ics)

Mandat e of Heaven

Monopoly on violence

Prerogat ive

Right t o exist

Rule according t o higher law

Rule of law

Self-det erminat ion

Territ orial int egrit y

References

1. Dahl, Robert A. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (pp. 124–188). New Haven (Connecticut) and
London: Yale University Press, 1971

2. Phelps, Martha Lizabeth (December 2014). "Doppelgangers of the State: Private Security and
Transferable Legitimacy". Politics & Policy. 42 (6): 824–849. doi:10.1111/polp.12100 (https://doi.org/1
0.1111%2Fpolp.12100) .

3. Ashcraft, Richard (ed.): John Locke: Critical Assessments (p. 524). London: Routledge, 1991

4. Sternberger, Dolf: "Legitimacy" in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (ed. D.L. Sills) Vol. 9
(p. 244). New York: Macmillan, 1968

5. Lipset, Seymour Martin: Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (2nd ed.) (p. 64). London:
Heinemann, 1983

. Chen, Jing (2016). Useful Complaints: How Petitions Assist Decentralized Authoritarianism in China.
New York: Lexington Books. p. 165. ISBN 9781498534536.

7. O'Neil, Patrick H. (2010). Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
pp. 35–38. ISBN 978-0-393-93376-5.

. Dews, Fred (2017-07-06). "A primer on gerrymandering and political polarization" (https://www.brooking
s.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/) .
Brookings. Retrieved 2018-06-26.

9. Edwards, George C. (2011). Why the electoral college is bad for America (Second ed.). New Haven.
ISBN 978-0-300-18087-9. OCLC 889943106 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/889943106) .
10. Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act" (https://www.nytimes.com/20
13/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html) . Retrieved 2018-06-26.

11. "Governance & Accountability" (https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/cri/programs/g

overnance-accountability) . www.hks.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2018-07-10.

12. "Home - Financial Transparency Coalition" (https://financialtransparency.org) . Financial Transparency

Coalition. Retrieved 2018-07-10.

13. "Finding Legitimacy" (https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org) .

findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org. Retrieved 2018-07-10.

14. "Viewpoints - Centre for Public Impact (CPI)" (https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/insights/?searchSt

ring=&theme%5B%5D=legitimacy&orderby=) . Centre for Public Impact (CPI). Retrieved 2018-07-10.

15. "Good Governance and Human Rights" (https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernan

ce/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx) . OHCHR. Retrieved 2018-07-10.

1 . Abulof, Uriel (2015). "Can't Buy Me Legitimacy": The Elusive and Illusive Stability of Mideast Rentier
Regimes (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jird201432a.html) .
Journal of International Relations and Development.

17. Weigand, Florian (April 2015). "Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn
Spaces" (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn
-spaces.pdf) (PDF). SiT/WP. 04/15.

1 . McCullough; et al. (2020). Reconstructing our understanding of the link between services and state
legitimacy (https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-Ma
y20-Proof11.pdf) (PDF). ODI.

19. Dogan, Mattei: Conceptions of Legitimacy, Encyclopedia of Government and Politics 2nd edition, Mary
Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan editors, Vol. 2, pp. 116-219. London: Routledge 2003

20. Initially published as Gallie (1956a), then as Gallie (1964).

21. Garver (1978), p. 168.

22. Charlton, Roger: Political Realities: Comparative Government (p. 23). London: Longman, 1986

23. Schmitt, Carl: Legality and Legitimacy (Jeffrey Seitzer translator). Durham (North Carolina): Duke
University Press, 2004

24. Tahmazyan, Daniel. "Is the Empire Eternal?" (https://www.evnreport.com/politics/is-the-empire-

eternal) . evnreport.com. Retrieved 2021-06-06.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Legitimacy_(political)&oldid=1048011904"

Last edited 2 months ago by John B123

Wikipedia