239048080

(449 words)

Article Summary: Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change

(Ross Mitiga)

Introduction

This article discussed about the debate in regards to government’s political

legitimacy when it comes to imposing authoritarianism-like policy or action to fight
climate change. Mitiga argued that this measure is important to prevent the critical
climate change; it does not make a government illegitimate for taking
authoritarianism-like measures. He questioned, to what extent can these measures
be considered as legitimate in a liberal-democratic society.

Summary

Mitiga first defined what constitutes as political legitimacy. Hobbes (1994) and
other contemporary realists defined it as the ability of the government to maintain the
security of its people (which Mitiga called as foundational legitimacy or FL); whereas
democratic and liberal scholars (or moralists) (Scharpf, 1999; Buchanan, 2002) view
a legitimacy as the willingness of the government to take priority of consent,
democracy, equal representation, protections of individual rights, social justice or a
mixture of these factors (he called this contingent legitimacy CL).

In his article, he theorized the relationship between FL and CL, in which CL

would not exist without FL; FL functions as the required condition to impose CL
measures. To prove this, he mentioned Hobbes (1999) and Bernard Williams (2005)
approach towards political legitimacy that it is the ability to ensure basic safety and
continue doing so in the future, but it should be exercised in acceptable ways
through democracy (Christiano, 1996). Mitiga then raised the concern when a state
is facing an emergency or he called is “states of exception” (SOE) of great
magnitude; when political institutions, processes and norms or ordinary “democratic”
measure is simply not effective (Schmitt, 1985). In this instance, he argues that SOE
that cannot be prevented raised the legitimacy of authoritarian intervention, as
Schmitt (1985) argued that SOE “defies general codification.”

In his argument, he proposed three conditions for authoritarian intervention to

be legitimate there must be no other viable option (necessary); 2) must foresee that

1
239048080

the exercise of such measure will achieve the desirable goal (success); and 3) the
power exercised must only be enforced only to the degree necessary to respond the
crisis (proportional).

Mitiga then turns to climate emergency. Mitiga argued that the best means to
avoid the recourse to authoritarian government is to prevent the SOE to happen.
However, it is no longer possible for climate change (Stacey, 2018). At this rate,
climate change had already caused devastating impact to people and will
consistently doing so if there is no sufficient action. Necessary policies such as
global emission reduction might affect public and industries, thus it might not be
popular. Considering this, he categorizes climate change as “a full-scale legitimacy
crisis;” thus, legitimate the resort to authoritarianism.

Mini Literature Review

(453 words)

In explaining his argument on the relationship between FL and CL, Mitiga first
made a distinction between realism and moralism arguments. In Hobbes account
(1994,) political authority will be legitimate if the protection of the citizens is being
ensured; related to the government’s responsibility to towards the natural right to
self-preservation. This is the fundamental objective of a government, hence political
legitimacy. Contrary to Hobbes, Williams (2005) views political legitimacy as the
acceptance of a measure by the public. He stressed that this acceptance does not
count if the acceptance of such measure was coercive-driven. In short, moralists
believe that political legitimacy is democracy.

Mitiga then question whether authoritarian measure (prioritizing FL) would be

legitimate in emergency. Mitiga based his idea on Rossiter’s note (1948), in which
when confronted by crisis, the government might be forced to destroy the state and
its freedom for the sake of security (proportionality); hence Mitiga argued that it is the
choice between CL and FL. In this regard, he argued that FL should be prioritized; as
Henry (1817) noted that suspending consensual measures to address serious
threats to public safety is necessary.

To support his argument on environmental emergency, Mitiga mainly referred to

Jocelyn Stacey’s book (2018) since there is a lack of discussion about the

2
239048080

environmental emergency. Jocelyn argues that environmental emergencies are

complex and naturally adaptive; it is dramatic, urgent, chronic, serious, and
seemingly benign.

Mitiga provided several examples to demonstrate the emergence of climate

change: the likelihood for the glaciers in Himalayan region to disappear, resulting in
permanent drought in several areas (Wester, 2019); the rise of food prices up to 84%
by 2050 (Schlenker and Roberts, 2009); and the prediction of an additional death of
16,500-250,000 children by 2100 (Stern, 2007) to name a few. In response to this,
the UN Secretary General even declared a “code red for humanity (UN, 2021).”

Issues with these characteristics require exceptional measures that often, as

Carl Schmitt put it, “violate or curtail constitutional commitments to basic civil liberties
and ordinary due process (Gross & Aolain, 2006).” In this situation, legal order may
even need to be suspended by the sovereign (in his account is executive) to bring
crisis to an end (Schmitt, 1985).

Conclusion

The issue on FL and CL might contradict each other in situation of emergency

since the government will be left with the option of imposing authoritarian-like
measures or prioritizing public consent. Mitiga had brilliantly delivered a compelling
argument that the former is legitimate, given the desirable outcome overrides the
public consent in catastrophe. His argument aligned with the nature of climate
change and its predicted impact for humanity. Therefore, authoritative power in times
of calamity is legitimate.

Bibliography

Buchanan, A. (2002) ‘Political Legitimacy and Democracy.’ Ethics, 112(4): 689-719.

Christiano, T. (2008) The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its

Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gross, O., Aolain, F., N. (2006) Law in Times of Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1994) Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668,
ed. Edwin Curley. Dallas: Hackett.

3
239048080

Scharpf, F. (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Schlenker, W., Roberts, M., J. (2009) ‘Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe
Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.’ Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(37): 15594-98.

Schmitt, C. (1985) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty,

trans. Swab, G. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Stacey, J. (2018) The Constitution of the Environmental Emergency. London:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Stern, N. (2007) The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

UN (2021), “Secretary-General Calls Latest IPCC Climate Report ‘Code Red for
Humanity’, Stressing ‘Irrefutable’ Evidence of Human Influence”, 9 August,
https://press.un.org/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm (Accessed: 15 November
2023).

Wester, Philippus, Mishra, a., Mukherji, a., Shrestha, A., B. (2019) The Hindu Kush
Himalaya Assessment: Mountains. Climate Change, Sustainability and People.
Kathmandu: Springer.

William, W (1817) Sketches of the Life and Character of Patric Henry. New York:
James Webster

Williams, B. (2005) ‘Realism and Moralism in Political Argument’. In: Williams, B., In
the Beginning was the Deed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.