Kwame Gyekye seeks to address the complex question of political legitimacy particularly on the African continent. He argues that the justification for political legitimacy need not necessarily depend on the economic performance of any given regime. For him, justification for legitimacy merely lies in whether all correct processes and procedures were properly followed in the assumption of power. He is of the view that military coups should not be tolerated as they lack legitimacy although they might have justification usurping power. He also argues that popular uprisings may have the justification to assume power but should subject themselves to a plebiscite to have legitimacy. In this paper I seek to argue that Gyekye's distinction between legitimacy and justification of exercise of political power is unsustainable. In contrast to Gyekye I seek to argue for a more plausible account of legitimacy that takes the substantive requirement much more seriously. I do this by showing the importance of the function of institutional checks on power in traditional African societies and seek to argue for the urgent need of such institutionalised checks on power in post-colonial Africa.
A Theoretical and Analytical Approach
Global governance, central to international rule-making, is rapidly evolving; thus, there is a need for a way to evaluate whether institutions have the capacity to address the problems of the contemporary era. Current methods of evaluating the democratic quality of contemporary governance are closely linked to legitimacy, about which there are competing definitional theories. This article uses a theoretical approach based around “new“ governance and the environmental policy arena to argue that contemporary governance is best understood as social-political interaction built on “participation as structure“ and “deliberation as process“, with the level of interaction ultimately determining legitimacy. It presents a new arrangement of the accepted attributes of “good“ governance using a set of principles, criteria and indicators, and relates these to the structures and processes of governance. The implications and application of the analytical framework are also discussed.
An Exploration of Power and Legitimacy in Transitional Justice
Julie Bernath and Sandra Rubli
Within transitional justice scholarship of the past ten years, “power” and “legitimacy” have increasingly become objects of study, in particular for scholars taking a critical stance to a normative conceptualization and implementation of
Against Functional and Global Solutions to the Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory
The boundary problem is a classic issue in democratic theory. It holds that, whatever the theory of legitimacy that we believe our preferred democratic decision procedure should meet, the initial act of constituting the demos can never be met by
, Wise Children . 3 Indeed, Wise Children self-consciously alludes to the Bard and announces its scrutiny and reversal of a father's claim on biological, and Shakespeare's relatively recent claim on cultural, legitimacy. It is easy to see why critics
Maurizio Passerin d'Entrèves
This article examines the question of justice in democratic constitutional states from the standpoint of a theory of deliberative democracy. Its aim is to show that the validity of a conception of justice and the legitimacy of political institutions and public policies based upon it can best be defended on the basis of a normative theory of deliberative democracy. This theory, I shall argue, is superior to the two main normative models of justification that appeal to the ideal of neutrality (Rawls, Larmore, Nagel) or to the ideal of perfectionism (Raz, Galston).
Why Politicians Matter
Distrust towards politicians is often identified as a key factor behind the current “crisis of democracy.” If there is a crisis, it only seems natural that at least some responsibility must rest with the political elite. This article locates this distrust in the context of broader debates about “antipolitics” and depoliticization. It examines how these debates have been informed by the putatively new set of challenges presented by the shift to governance and changing notions of legitimacy. The article concludes that politicians remain a necessity, not a choice. Politicians might be part of the problem, but they are certainly not the only problem. It ends by calling for a re-articulation of the relationship between government and citizens and leadership and democracy.
Défaillances de l'aide, équité et légitimité
Mamadou Barry, Bruno Boidin, and Stéphane Tizio
*Full article is in French
English abstract: The aim of this article is to study the efficiency of health aid through an analysis of recommendations made by those working in development assistance. The central focus concerns the legitimacy of these recommendations. We show that recent directions in health aid still neglect equity and sustainability issues. We also discuss how to introduce ethical considerations into health aid.
Spanish abstract: Este artículo examina las condiciones de la eficiencia de la ayuda para la salud, dadas las opciones de políticas de salud preconizadas por los actores de la ayuda al desarrollo. La pregunta sobre la legitimidad de estas preconizaciones constituye el centro de la reflexión. El artículo muestra que las recientes orientaciones en la ayuda al desarrollo en el campo de la salud dejan de lado asuntos de equidad y sostenibilidad de las políticas. En este contexto se proponen pistas que permitan introducir consideraciones éticas en la ayuda a la salud.
French abstract: Cet article s'interroge sur les conditions d'efficacité de l'aide à la santé compte tenu des options de politiques de santé préconisées par les acteurs de l'aide au développement. La question de la légitimité de ces préconisations est au cœur de notre réflexion. Nous montrons que les orientations récentes de l'aide au développement dans le domaine de la santé négligent toujours les questions d'équité et de soutenabilité des politiques. Nous proposons alors des pistes perme ant d'introduire des considérations éthiques dans l'aide à la santé.
Israel and BDS
This article examines the securitization of delegitimization as a national security threat in Israel. The article contains three elements. First, theoretically, it analyzes legitimacy as a national security asset and delegitimization as a risk to ontological security. Second, it traces the Israeli response to delegitimization, providing an empirically rich account of this approach. Finally, it seeks to provide an assessment, albeit preliminary, of the effectiveness of the Israeli response. It concludes by discussing policy implications, emphasizing the benefits and counterproductive outcomes of an otherwise successful securitization process. Although Israel has had success curbing delegitimization with regard to political elites at the state level, it continues to lose ground with both the grassroots and Western liberal audiences.
This article addresses the question of why Israel initiated the Second Lebanon War so quickly, despite the civilian agenda to which the government had been committed, other mitigating factors, and the fact that the kidnapping of two soldiers did not warrant such a massive operation. Arguably, the war reflected the syndrome of a gap of legitimacies, that is, the gap that has emerged since the 1980s between high levels of political legitimacy for using force and low levels of social legitimacy for making the attendant sacrifices. Both values led to belligerency. Strong support for the use of force pushed Israel into taking offensive action that a civilian government could not contain, while the low level of social legitimation for sacrifice led to speedy decision-making and the desire for a swift conclusion by using massive force. Such a response would obviate any restraints on military action that might result from discussions about how to avoid sacrifices.