Can a state be illegitimate even if all its

citizens accept its rule?

Maia Huppert-Antonov

To paraphrase the essay prompt, is the acceptance of citizens the only thing that gives a state

legitimacy? This essay aims to prove that a state can be illegitimate even if all of its citizens

accept its rule. Firstly, this essay will find a definition of political legitimacy. Secondly, this

essay will delve into the role that citizens' consent and acceptance of the rule of a state play in

the legitimacy of that state. Thirdly, any factors that might bring into question the legitimacy of a

state despite the acceptance of its citizens will be analysed. Finally, all findings will be

summarised and a conclusion will be drawn.

Political legitimacy is the basis on which political leaders base their right to rule. "Political

legitimacy is a virtue of political institutions and of the decisions—about laws, policies, and

candidates for political office—made within them." (Peter, Fabienne, 2017). Political legitimacy

gives politicians the authority to act in the name of a whole nation, and to make decisions that

will have an impact on millions of lives. Furthermore, it gives political institutions the right to

enforce any legislation or decision made by the state. Throughout history, there have been many

theories, on what factors can make a state legitimate.

John Locke states that the power to make laws can only be given by those, upon whom those

laws will be imposed. "The lawful power of making laws to command whole politic societies of

men, belonging so properly unto the same entire societies, that for any prince or potentate of

what kind soever upon earth, to exercise the same of himself, and not by express commission
immediately and personally received from God, or else by authority derived at the first from their

consent, upon whose persons they impose laws, it is no better than mere tyranny. Laws they are

not therefore which public approbation hath not made so. " (Locke, John, 1689).

However, such consent is at best assumed and at worst not even needed for the functioning of

our society. When entering society at birth or at any other time in our life, we are not asked for

our consent to the current system. Neither our agreement with the preexisting laws of the nation,

nor to the current political system is required from us at any point in our lives. During our

everyday lives, we might not even question why we are obeying a state of which we are not

founders and to which we did not agree. Such a state might not have our best interests at heart,

and could even actively harm us, yet most people do not start to question its legitimacy until its

harmful activities turn to the extreme. Furthermore, if one person or even a large group of people

publicly denied the legitimacy of the state, they would probably either be ignored or punished.

As long as the majority of people are at peace with the state, it is considered legitimate. Thus,

consent to the system is not needed to give the state legitimacy. At least not from everyone.

In 1045 BC, the Western Zhou Dynasty conquered the Shang Dynasty. They "claimed that they

were able to come to power because Heaven had taken away the mandate of ruling China from

the bad Shang king and passed it onto the virtuous Western Zhou rulers." (Zhao, Dingxin, 2022).

The "Mandate of Heaven" is a concept created to give rulers political legitimacy. As the ruler

could lose the mandate of Heaven if he was incompetent, this concept encouraged rulers to work

hard for the interests of their country. "The Western Zhou rulers saw the heavenly mandate as

precarious and believed that the only way to hold on to it was by governing well. In other words,

while the Western Zhou rulers propagated the Mandate of Heaven concept, it was right to

conduct that they actually emphasised." (Zhao, Dingxin, 2022). This idea of legitimacy is based
on good governance and good conduct. In my opinion, this is a practical approach, as a ruler who

did not follow the best interest of the state, could lose his mandate. However, such an approach

can be quite undemocratic, as there is no organ to monitor the emperor and decide if he remains

fit to rule. Moreover, there was no way for the people to voice their dissatisfaction, and their

opinion was not relevant. There is also no objective measurement by which one can measure

"good governance", other than the welfare of citizens. If a ruler governs well, the standard of

living would rise and poverty would gradually lessen. This ancient idea can be brought into the

modern world by stating, that a state that brings about the welfare of all of its citizens is a

legitimate one if all citizens consent to it. However, even if all citizens consent, a state that

cannot fulfil its purpose and further the interest of its citizens is not a legitimate one.

Another factor in the legitimacy of a state is whether it adheres to the rule of law. An

independent judiciary, for example, is vital to the rule of law. Therefore, if state officials

commanded the judiciary, taking away the opportunity for citizens to have a fair trial or have

their case heard, it would not be a legitimate state. Another question is, whether all citizens,

wealthy or not, have the same opportunity to solve their justiciable problems in court. If those

who do not have the financial means cannot protect themselves legally, it is not a state which has

the rule of law. This means that would not be entirely legitimate. People can access and afford

civil justice if they "can access and afford legal advice and representation; and can access the

court system without incurring unreasonable fees, encountering unreasonable procedural hurdles,

or experiencing physical or linguistic barriers." (WJP rule of law index).

If Taiwan and Kosovo are autonomous states, why is Catalonia not one? Is the will of the

residents not sufficient to form a state? In the case of these territories, Taiwan and Kosovo are

internationally acknowledged as autonomous, while Catalonia is not. "A state which is

recognized as legitimate is accorded membership in the community of states, with the

accompanying moral and legal status."(Rocheleau, Jordy, 2011). International recognition is vital

to any state if it wants to stay in existence. If a state does not have international recognition, it

can be attacked by any foreign nation, without that aggressor facing any sort of international

backlash. The issue of international acknowledgement usually arises when territories within

larger countries demand autonomy. To such territories, it is of great importance that foreign

countries accept them among their ranks, in order to continue trade and be able to sustain

themselves in their new-found independence. In summary, the international community can

legitimize a state and a state cannot be legitimate without international recognition.

The objective of this essay was to demonstrate that a state can be deemed illegitimate, even if it

has the full acceptance of its rule by its citizens. To summarise, the elements that bestow

legitimacy upon a state are as follows: the consent of its citizens, the competence of the state,

adherence to the rule of law, and recognition at the international level. In my opinion, a state can

only be considered legitimate if it successfully meets all of these criteria. If any one of these

aspects remains unfulfilled, the state will not have complete legitimacy.
 Works cited:

 Peter, Fabienne, "Political Legitimacy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/legitimacy/>.

 Zhao, D. (2022). Mandate of Heaven (China). In The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Social and Political Movements (eds D.A. Snow, D. Porta, B. Klandermans and D.

McAdam). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm333.pub2

 World Justice Project, Factors, Civil Justice, URL = <https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-

of-law-index/factors/2022/Civil%20Justice/>

 Rocheleau, J. (2011). Recognitional Legitimacy. In: Chatterjee, D.K. (eds) Encyclopedia

of Global Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_374

 Locke, John, The Second Treatise of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration