 |
| |
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
"Are you saying that before democracy there were no legitimate governments?"
Of course not. I mentioned religion, ethnic loyalty and ideology as the three main ways states legitimize themselves.
Look at the building of the pyramids as a perfect example.
In reality, the rulers of egypt were papmered men who who could tell other men to go stick spears in their enemies. That's power.
However, these rulers legitimzed themselves by building up an elaborate religion, the cult of the god-kings, and spending enourmous amounts of energy on great projects desgned to legitimize their power. That's political legitimacy.
Charlemagne, in your example, as a guy with a bunch of knights who could chop you up if they didn't like you. That's military power.
But Charlemagne was also very good at using religion, championing the church, legal institutions, and other techniques of legitimacy.
If Charlemagne HADN'T bothered to legitimze his political power and had merely been another warlrod with a bunch of armoured thugs, he would not have been able to create the state that he did. Power creates states; legitimacy perpetuates them.
Let's fast forward a couple of years...here, in the 21st century, most educated people believe that legitimacy comes from a mandate from the people, not from being a god-king, or from god, or from being the 'Father of the People'.
Musharraf doesn't have 21 century, liberal democratic legitimacy. He has power, in that the army will shoot or drag away his enemies, but very little legitimacy.
There is a big difference between mere power and legitimacy. Rules and states CRAVE legitimacy, they'll do almost anything to get it, from building monuments to enacting sweeping constitutional reforms. Obviously what constitutes 'legitimacy' changes with the times.
The ruler of Turkmenistan runs a dictatorship based on personality and ethnic loyalty, calling himselft 'the Father of All Turkmen'. That's a justification for his states power that would've been valid in the 14th century, but today we laugh at it. What counts as legitimacy changes with the historical changes in religion, ethnic/racial identities, and ideology.
A great example: Napoleon's march to Paris. A man without real military power, but with tremendous legitimacy among the French people of the time.
Another example: Tamerlane, the mongol conqueror of the 14th century never lost a battle. His military power was invincible, yet his state collapsed in a short time, like a fire across the prairie, because it totally lacked legitimacy in the minds of the Persians, Turks, and Afghans who lived there. They had no reason to obey the Timurid state other than the threat of naked force. Their power extened only as far as they could ride in a given month because they lacked legitimacy.
Why didn't Tokugawa Ieyasu simply kill the Emperor and rule Japan? Easy: Despite his total, absolute military power he would have lost all legitimacy. The rulers of Japan have long used the Imperial family to legitimize their power. .....yet, these days in Japan power is legitimized by a popular mandate.
Let's put it this way: Let's say the US military tried to stage a coup. Their power is great, no bunch of NRA types could stop them. Yet the idea is ridiculous not because they lack military powerm but because they would lack legitimacy, a military coup in the US would fall apart after a year if was ever successful because Americans (and other 21st century people) regard dictatorships as illegitimate.
It's all about legitimacy; the British Empire fell apart because it could no longer legitimize itself, not from lack of power.
Why do you think dictatorships in Third World countries are constantly toppling and being replaced? Because they have near 0 legitimacy, no matter how many rockets or tanks they have legitimacy, especially in this information age, is far more important than power.
That's why Bush is dangerous for America, because he increasingly delegitimizes American power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:17
|
|
So the State Department calls Iran a democracy and no one *****es. It's an alliance of convenience, people. Anyone who takes him seriously is off his rocker.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-12-2004 10:21
|