[Innes]

What, in this context, constitutes legitimacy?

[Diogenes]

I believe legitimacy is spelled out in the context of the article I will look as soon as I am able or when the heroin kicks inn <br /> me sick me wussy<br /> flu bug has me <br /> <br /> edited 3:27 pst<br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political_science)<br /> this help?

[Diogenes]

<br /> this of any help?<br /> <br /> http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199707/msg00320.html<br /> <br /> Notes on Legitimacy "-------------------- */<br /> <br /> INTERPRETING LEGITIMACY<br /> ***********************<br /> There have been some discussion about SLORC and its legitimacy on the Net<br /> (most keenly by one of our friends from Switzerland). In this, it is found<br /> that the term "legitimacy" may be referred to its varying meanings<br /> alongwith the content of discussion. For example, the U.S.Committee for<br /> Refugee, in one of its report, states "increased international interaction<br /> with SLORC furthers SLORC's efforts to boost its legitimacy". That<br /> statement in connection with "legitimacy" may contradict, if not taken a<br /> correct choice of the meaning, with the statement by Human Rights Law Group<br /> of "international organizations may accord recognition to Myanmar does not<br /> imply the legitimacy of the SLORC regime". These two statements, in fact,<br /> are not in contradiction since they referred to different meanings of the<br /> term "legitimacy". Following, I summarized various interpretation of<br /> the term "legitimacy".<br /> <br /> In the most common use, the legitimacy of a government is considered to be<br /> directly related to democratic process(that is, the government must not be<br /> a dictatorship) and the population obeyed the rulings of that government<br /> [1.Dictionary of Politics, 6th Edition, 1978, by Walter J.Raymond,<br /> SJD. PH.D.]:<br /> <br /> LEGITIMACY: A notion applicable to state craft whereby, as long as the<br /> electorate (or the people in general) obey the government in<br /> power (provided that it is not a despotic dictatorship) and<br /> obey the law to the extent that government can sustain itself,<br /> that government is considered legal and legitimate. Also, the<br /> basis on which the government-of-the-day may command obedience<br /> and use power with authority.<br /> <br /> A much wider meaning of legitimacy is given by [Dictionary of Politics,<br /> 2nd Edition, 1993, by David Robertson]. According to D. Robertson, not only<br /> the "elected governments" can have the legitimacy, any government-in-power<br /> may be considered to have some form of legitimacy; and the concept of<br /> legitimacy is connected with governmental power:<br /> <br /> LEGITIMACY: Legitimacy is both a normative and empirical concept in<br /> political science. Normatively, to ask whether a political<br /> system is legitimate or not is to ask whether the state, or<br /> government, is entitled to be obeyed. As such the idea of<br /> legitimacy is connected with the legal concepts of de jure and<br /> de facto power. Whatever the accepted grounds of political<br /> obligation may be, legitimacy refers to these. Its more<br /> interesting application, however, may be in the empirical<br /> usage, especially in political sociology. Here the<br /> concentration is principally on how any given political system<br /> comes to be seen as 'legitimate' by a majority of its citizens.<br /> Why do most citizens of the USA and the People's Republic of<br /> China see their government as entitled to require their<br /> obedience when, presumably, people are much the same in both<br /> countries but policies and structures of the state ore very<br /> different ? This is the question addressed by those who study<br /> legitimacy as an empirical fact rather than a philosophical<br /> problem. ...........................<br /> ....... Thus democracies tend to argue for their legitimacy<br /> in terms of giving voters what they immediately want, while<br /> other political systems may offer general principles to support<br /> their right to command. Socialists states may focus on the<br /> ultimate benefit to workers, right-wing juntas on some sense of<br /> traditional national identity.<br /> <br /> More clearer explanation of legitimacy is given by [The Dictionary of<br /> 20th-Century World Politics, 1st Edition 1993, by J.M.Shafritz et.al] as:<br /> <br /> LEGITIMACY: 1. A descriptive aspect of a social institution, a government<br /> or a family for example, that has both a legal and a perceived<br /> right to make binding decisions for its members. Only a public<br /> can grant legitimacy to an institution. Legitimacy is both a<br /> specific legal concept, meaning that something is lawful, and<br /> at the same time and amorphous psychosociological concept<br /> referring to an important element in the social glue that holds<br /> institutions together. The German sociologist Max Weber<br /> (1864-1920) is the foremost analyst of the legitimacy of<br /> governing structure. He asserted that there were three pure<br /> types of legitimate authority: charismatic (in which the<br /> personal qualities of a leader command obedience); traditional<br /> (in which custom and culture yield acquiescence); and legal (in<br /> which people obey laws enacted by what they perceive to be<br /> appropriate authorities). 2. The quality of an administration<br /> that has come to power through free elections or established<br /> constitutional procedures. Thus a government imposed by<br /> military force may lack legitimacy. As U.S. Ambassador to the<br /> UNited Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrik has said: "A government is<br /> not legitimate merely because it exists"( Time, June 17,<br /> 1985,).<br /> <br /> According to the note above, the concept of "1. legitimacy" can, in fact,<br /> be applied in descriptive sense to any social or political institutions,<br /> including governments. It can also be noted that the meaning of<br /> "2. legitimacy" is more commonly referred in the writings.<br /> <br /> In my opinion, the most comprehensive and the best interpretation for the<br /> term "legitimacy" is given by [A New Dictionary of Political Analysis, 1st<br /> Edition 1991, G.Roberts and A.Edwards.]. Their note regarding to legitimacy<br /> is:<br /> <br /> LEGITIMACY: A characteristic of the exercise of political power when that<br /> power is believed to be in accordance with certain principles<br /> and practices. The term may be applied normatively, positively,<br /> or descriptively: normatively when power is judged worthy of<br /> acceptance according to some coherent set of standards, such as<br /> right or justice; positively when power is exercised within the<br /> limits laid down by law and constitution, by the persons and<br /> according to the procedures so prescribed; descriptively when<br /> power is more or less generally accepted, by those over whom it<br /> is exercised, to be in accordance with whatever principles they<br /> happen to hold. Political science is primarily concerned with<br /> the beliefs and practices actually present within a system, and<br /> so uses 'legitimacy' principally in the descriptive sense. The<br /> exact nature of principles and practices that confer legitimacy<br /> vary from society to society, and over time: divine authority,<br /> natural law, constitutional settlement, the rule of law,<br /> democratic decisions or elections, and hereditary descent,<br /> being common example.<br /> <br /> Legitimacy is crucial for the operation of government, and for<br /> the survival of the political system. All government depends on<br /> some belief in its right to exercise power, even though that<br /> belief may never be unanimous and may sometimes be limited to<br /> key elements of the state apparatus. Governments will therefore<br /> seek to justify the form and content of their rule by reference<br /> to those principles that seem most cogent. The production of<br /> appropriate beliefs, whether by the conscious creation of<br /> ruling groups or by unintended social processes, is referred to<br /> as 'legitimation'.

[Diogenes]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... ed&spell=1

[Diogenes]

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/jgf21/Locke.html<br /> <br /> Hey innes Am I off the hook yet <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'>

[Innes]

Just as I though, it is clear as mud.<br /> <br /> Regimes, such as the Taliban, could be classed as legitimate. You have western politicians justifying the use of such tactics "coersive interrogation," which is simply a redefination of forms of torture, to extract what is always questionable information.<br /> <br /> In 1993 an American philosophy professor gave the Masssey lectures and published a book called "Democracy on Trial." Her arguments applied equally to both left and right ideological extremes in the U.S., , with a tendency to the center right, and how it impinged on civil liberties. Although I found her arguments contradictory that is not the issue here because overall her views on the undermining of civil society and the collapsing of public and private spheres struck a cord.<br /> <br /> More recently she wrote a book defending the Bush Administration's policy of "pre-emptive attack" and its War on Iraq. In fact, her critics place her new work in the category of that of Michael Ignatieff. I must admit that I have not been able to find a copy of that book but I have read a critical review and her response. <br /> <br /> The impact of 9/11 and the Iraq War has probably done more to undermine civil liberties, civil society, and privacy in North America than anything since World War II.

[Diogenes]

With all due respect<br /> <br /> It seems as though you are as unsatisfied with my answers to what legitimacy is as I am with your reply to what I have offered. That may be due to my lack of earnest research into the question, however I am not one to leave unsatisfied issues left undone unsatisfied.<br /> <br /> <br /> Legitimacy of the state seems to be derived from and reflective of the quality of those who support the state. The states, it appears, is sanctioned by fools and idiots, or those I have called shit-eaters in as much as they will eat any shit fed them by the state. <br /> Kind of loops back on itself don’t it?<br /> <br /> Fools and idiots as well as the wilfully ignorant re the ones who give legitimacy to the state: The noun legitimacy has 2 meanings:<br /> Meaning #1: lawfulness by virtue of being authorized or in accordance with law<br /> Antonym: illegitimacy (meaning #2)<br /> Meaning #2: undisputed credibility<br /> Synonyms: authenticity, genuineness<br /> legitimacy <br /> noun<br /> The state or quality of being within the law: lawfulness, legality, legitimateness, licitness. See law.<br /> <br /> It is the people of a country who out of ignorance lend credence (legitimacy) and then whine and complain when they get fucked over. <br /> <br /> Is it any wonder the American philosopher you site can present argument, as you say, “Her arguments applied equally to both left and right ideological extremes in the U.S., , with a tendency to the center right, and how it impinged on civil liberties.”?<br /> <br /> It certainly isn’t to me, based on my assertions above.<br /> <br /> <br /> “The impact of 9/11 and the Iraq War has probably done more to undermine civil liberties, civil society, and privacy in North America than anything since World War II.”<br /> <br /> In my opinion the undermining of civil liberties had more than enough collusion by those who relinquished their civil liberties. <br /> <br />