View source for Legitimacy

[[File:278px-John Locke by Herman Verelst.png|thumb|alt=Fun fact: Locke was probably the original "free speech absolutist" before it was edgy, arguing that people shouldn't get executed just for having spicy takes. What a mad lad.|"John LOLcke," a wig-wearing 17th-century neckbeard who thought that peasants actually had opinions worth listening to. He came up with the crackpot idea of "consent of the governed," which basically means "the government shouldn't treat you like trash without asking first." This totally wild concept laid the groundwork for modern democracy, which is now ignored by most politicians anyway.]]
'''Legitimacy''' (n.): The mystical fairy dust that governments sprinkle over themselves to convince the peasants that their '''taxation, oppression, and general nonsense''' is somehow justified. Legitimacy is basically when the '''biggest gang''' in a region convinces everyone that they’re the '''good guys''' simply because they have fancier titles, shinier suits, and occasionally hold '''rigged popularity contests''' (also known as elections) to make the whole thing look official.

=== Political Legitimacy ===

In politics, legitimacy is when a bunch of people with '''bad haircuts and ties''' decide they have the divine right to tell you what to do because they '''read a fancy piece of paper out loud''' in a big room. In ancient China, this was called the '''Mandate of Heaven''', which meant that as long as the emperor wasn’t struck by lightning or overthrown by a peasant revolt, he was obviously appointed by the gods. Modern legitimacy is more complicated, mostly involving '''corrupt lobbyists''', media mouthpieces, and the occasional '''coup d’état''' disguised as a democratic transition.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Phelps|first1=Martha Lizabeth|title=Doppelgangers of the State: Private Security and Transferable Legitimacy|journal=Politics & Policy|date=December 2014|volume=42|issue=6|pages=824–849|doi=10.1111/polp.12100}}</ref>
=== Moral Legitimacy ===

When people voluntarily accept the '''societal LARP''' that those in charge actually have a moral right to boss them around. Basically, if enough people agree that a '''rich guy in a suit''' is allowed to ruin their lives through '''"legal channels"''', it somehow makes it okay. Philosophers like '''John Locke''' argued that government only has legitimacy if the people '''consent'''—an idea that’s about as realistic as a '''unicorn running for office'''. Meanwhile, thinkers like '''Robert A. Dahl''' described legitimacy as a metaphorical '''reservoir''', which makes sense considering how most modern governments are drowning in '''BS'''.<ref>{{cite book|last=O'Neil|first=Patrick H.|title=Essentials of Comparative Politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93376-5|pages=35–38}}</ref>

=== TL;DR ===

Legitimacy is the '''pretend hall pass''' governments wave around to avoid getting wedgied by the mob. As long as people buy into the '''cosplay of authority''', the whole charade continues. If they stop believing, it’s only a matter of time before the pitchforks and torches come out.

== Types ==
=== Tradition, charisma, and rational-legality ===
Legitimacy is a fancy word for when people don't throw a tantrum over who's in charge. It basically means that some schmuck or system is accepted as “right and proper” by the public, or at least tolerated because rebelling takes too much effort.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chen|first=Jing|title=Useful Complaints: How Petitions Assist Decentralized Authoritarianism in China|year=2016|publisher=Lexington Books|location=New York|isbn=9781498534536|pages=165}}</ref> In political science, legitimacy is the magic trick that makes authority look like consent instead of coercion. German edgelord sociologist [[Max Weber]] coined three types of legitimacy in his essay "Politics as Vocation":

* '''Traditional legitimacy''' – Basically, "we've always done it this way, so why stop?" This is when authority leeches off nostalgia and people's fear of change. Think of monarchies, where inbred royals still get to boss people around because muh tradition. Tribalism also falls under this category, where people pretend that old customs and elder wisdom somehow translate to effective governance.

* '''Charismatic legitimacy''' – This is when some smooth-talking narcissist with a god complex convinces people they’re the second coming of [insert deity]. It relies on the leader’s ✨epic vibes✨ rather than pesky things like competence or laws. The moment the leader croaks, the whole regime tends to fall apart unless they have a worthy successor. See: every cult leader ever.

* '''Rational-legal legitimacy''' – This is the bureaucratic snooze-fest type of legitimacy. It relies on rules, procedures, and the illusion of fairness. People obey because they trust the system, not because they care about who’s running it. It’s the foundation of modern democracy, where we pretend that voting makes a difference. It’s also the wet dream of pencil-pushers and policy nerds.<ref>{{cite book|last=O'Neil|first=Patrick H.|title=Essentials of Comparative Politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93376-5|pages=35–38}}</ref>

More recent scholarship, written by academics trying to justify their tenure, has concocted even more types of legitimacy to sound sophisticated. These include:

* '''Empirical legitimacy vs. normative legitimacy''' – Fancy terms for "what actually happens" vs. "what should happen" in politics. The former is whether people actually accept the regime, while the latter is whether the regime deserves to be accepted.
* '''Instrumental vs. substantive legitimacy''' – Instrumental means "this regime gives me free stuff, so I tolerate it," while substantive is "I genuinely believe this system is good" (rarely happens).
* '''Popular legitimacy''' – When the mob approves of the regime. See: bread and circuses.
* '''Regulative legitimacy''' – When the system appears legitimate just because it enforces rules, even if the rules are garbage.
* '''Procedural legitimacy''' – When people buy into the system because it follows the rules of the game, even if the game is rigged.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn Spaces |journal=Security in Transition |date=2015 |url=https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Risse |first1=Thomas |last2=Stollenwerk |first2=Eric |date=2018-05-11 |title=Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |language=en |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=403–418 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-023610 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schoon |first=Eric W. |date=2022-03-10 |title=Operationalizing Legitimacy |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221081379 |journal=American Sociological Review |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=478–503 |doi=10.1177/00031224221081379 |s2cid=247399875 |issn=0003-1224}}</ref>

=== Dignity, but Edgy ===
In the spicy and glorious hellscape that is conflict zones, where multiple warlords, tinpot dictators, and self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" play tug-of-war with authority, legitimacy is basically a social experiment. Weigand’s galaxy-brain theory of interactive dignity claims that legitimacy comes from not being a complete asshat when you interact with the peasants.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> Basically, if your local warlord gives you the occasional polite nod instead of torching your village, you might be more inclined to support him.
People just want basic human dignity and not to be treated like disposable meat puppets.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> In short, if your overlord treats you like a cash cow instead of a cockroach, they score bonus legitimacy points.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> If they fail at this very basic humanity simulator, people will gladly throw their lot in with some sketchy dudes with homemade flags.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref>

== Flavors of Legitimacy ==
[[File:Horus as falcon.svg.png|thumb|left|150px|Egyptian [[divine right of kings|holy bird king]] [[Horus]] giving side-eye to plebs]]

=== Divine Fan Fiction ===
{{Further|Divine right of kings|Mandate of Heaven|Imperial cult (ancient Rome)}}
In the OG theocracies, legitimacy was just divine LARPing.

In [[ancient Egypt]] (c. 3150 BC), Pharaohs were considered literal gods, with the theological canon stating they were basically the Egyptian version of a Superman x Jesus crossover, being the spawn of [[Osiris]] and the bird-headed god [[Horus]]. This made them un-punchable by peasants.
=== Democracy LARP ===
[[File:Women vote in Cairo - 27-May-2014.jpg|left|thumb|A rare photo of people pretending that their vote matters]]
In allegedly "civilized" societies, legitimacy comes from the high-IQ concept of voting. The whole "power to the people" thing hinges on the assumption that the system isn't rigged by things like [[gerrymandering]], which is basically electoral necromancy where politicians resurrect the dead spirit of democracy and make it dance for them.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/|title=A primer on gerrymandering and political polarization|last=Dews|first=Fred|date=2017-07-06|work=Brookings|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en-US|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710194523/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/|url-status=live}}</ref>
Then there's the ancient black magic ritual known as the [[United States Electoral College]], where you can win the throne despite having fewer votes, thanks to a game of political 4D chess.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Edwards, George C.|title=Why the electoral college is bad for America|year=2011|isbn=978-0-300-18087-9|edition=Second|location=New Haven|oclc=889943106}}</ref>

Also, since nothing screams "legitimacy" like voter suppression, there was the [[Shelby County v. Holder]] ruling in 2013, which made it easier to block certain demographics from voting.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|title=Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act|last=Liptak|first=Adam|work=The New York Times|date=25 June 2013|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en|archive-date=2019-05-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525030949/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
In short, democracy is a LARP with occasionally moving goalposts.

Other methods of legitimacy include financial transparency, which basically means "pretending you're honest while moving money through a legally sketchy pipeline,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://financialtransparency.org/|title=Home - Financial Transparency Coalition|website=Financial Transparency Coalition|language=en-US|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2021-05-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518200635/https://financialtransparency.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> and "stake-holder accountability," which is corporate speak for "blaming interns when things go sideways."

The Center for Public Impact, a think tank for people who love spreadsheets, attempted to figure out what makes governments legit by asking regular citizens, scholars, and bureaucrats, which is like asking Twitter to solve world hunger.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org|title=Finding Legitimacy|website=findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org|language=en-GB|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710164814/https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== "Good" governance vs "bad" governance ===
The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR) established standards of what is considered "good governance" that include the key attributes of transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation, and responsiveness (to the needs of the people).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx|title=Good Governance and Human Rights|website=OHCHR|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710164306/https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Input, output, and throughput legitimacy ===
Assessing the political legitimacy of a government can be done by examining three dimensions of legitimacy: 
* '''Input legitimacy''', introduced by [[Fritz W. Scharpf|Fritz Scharpf]], refers to the responsiveness to citizen concerns, driven by public participation. 
* '''Output legitimacy''' concerns the effectiveness of policy outcomes in addressing public needs. 
* '''Throughput legitimacy''', introduced by [[Vivien A. Schmidt|Vivien Schmidt]], evaluates the governance processes that occur between input and output.

=== Negative and positive legitimacy ===
Abulof distinguishes between two types of political legitimacy:
* '''Negative political legitimacy (NPL)''': focuses on the object of legitimation (answering ''what'' is legitimate), concerned with determining the boundary between good and bad governance.
* '''Positive political legitimacy (PPL)''': concerns the source of legitimation (answering ''who'' is the 'legitimator'), focusing on the actors granting legitimacy. 
From an NPL perspective, legitimacy derives from appropriate actions, whereas PPL links it to appropriate actors. In the social contract tradition:
* '''Hobbes''' and '''Locke''' emphasized NPL, prioritizing security and liberty, respectively. 
* '''Rousseau''' emphasized PPL, viewing "the people" as the ultimate legitimators.
Both forms of legitimacy are critical for political stability.<ref name="Abulof">Abulof, Uriel (2015). 
[http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jird201432a.html "Can't Buy Me Legitimacy": The Elusive and Illusive Stability of Mideast Rentier Regimes]. Journal of International Relations and Development.</ref>

=== Instrumental and substantive legitimacy ===
Weber's concept of legitimacy is based on shared ''values'', such as tradition and rational-legality. However, policies that aim to (re-)establish legitimacy by improving service delivery often respond to shared ''needs'' instead.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Weigand|first=Florian|date=April 2015|title=Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn Spaces|url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf|journal=SiT/WP|volume=04/15|access-date=2016-08-08|archive-date=2016-08-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816192014/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 
Weigand differentiates between:
* '''Instrumental legitimacy''': based on the perceived effectiveness of service delivery and the rational assessment of authority's usefulness in meeting shared needs.
* '''Substantive legitimacy''': a normative judgment rooted in shared values. When individuals perceive an entity as having the right to exercise social control, they may accept personal disadvantages as legitimate.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref>

=== Perceived legitimacy ===
Legitimacy is not automatically granted through transactional means such as service provision, elections, or the rule of law.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weigand |first=Florian |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022-09-01 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55364-3 |access-date=2023-03-04 |archive-date=2023-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304093807/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |url-status=live }}</ref> 
Instead, it depends on:
* Citizens' '''perceptions and expectations''' of the state,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weigand |first=Florian |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022-09-01 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55364-3 |access-date=2023-03-04 |archive-date=2023-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304093807/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* '''Co-construction''' of legitimacy between state actors and citizens.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=McCullough|display-authors=etal|title=Reconstructing our understanding of the link between services and state legitimacy|publisher=ODI|year=2020|url=https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-May20-Proof11.pdf|access-date=2021-10-02|archive-date=2021-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210919192433/https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-May20-Proof11.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 

=== Establishing what qualifies as a legitimate form of government: A philosophical dumpster fire ===
Determining what counts as "legitimate" government is like arguing about which pizza topping reigns supreme—nobody really agrees, and the more you think about it, the more insane the idea seems. Here are some of the contenders for "legitimate government," but don't hold your breath for any clear answers:

=== Communism ===
Ah, communism—the political system that claims its legitimacy by… winning a civil war. Yeah, it’s that simple. The government’s actions are totally legit as long as they’ve either waged a successful revolution or won an election where everyone was either too scared to vote or didn’t know what was happening. In the early 20th century, communists leaned hard into the "science" behind their ideology (remember Marxism? Yeah, it’s scientific, apparently). Some impressive logic, if your idea of science involves saying "workers of the world unite" while your government hoards all the wealth.
[Note: Don't forget Salvador Allende in Chile—totally legit until, you know, a military coup.]

=== Constitutionalism ===
When a country says, "The law is supreme," they’re likely referring to constitutionalism, which sounds like a boring law class where you learn checks and balances—but hey, it's what keeps the government from turning into a dictatorship (sort of). The legitimacy here supposedly comes from everyone believing that the government is "doing things by the book." Just remember: the book is the constitution, which is treated as gospel—except when it's convenient for politicians to ignore it. For all we know, the checks in the system could be a neat little scam to make the people feel like they have a say, while the real power brokers laugh all the way to the bank.

=== Democracy ===
Democracy is basically the golden child of government legitimacy. Why? Because it claims that the people are in charge. It works, sometimes, except when it doesn’t. The legitimacy of a government supposedly comes from the "democratic principles" it follows. That sounds great, right? Except the entire system can be hijacked by billionaires and social media bots to steer the public in whatever direction suits them. Truly accountable to the people, right? Insert sarcasm here.

=== Fascism ===
Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s was like the edgy, controversial cousin who showed up to the party and started smashing everything. Fascists based their legitimacy on the absolute destruction of liberal democracy, because why follow the rules when you can just claim you’re "restoring order" by steamrolling over every single right people think they have? Carl Schmitt, the legal philosopher who helped the Nazis draft their "How to Break Democracy 101" guide, wasn’t shy about asking how a government can be considered legitimate when 51% of the population gets to decide everything while the other 49% is forced to accept it. Spoiler: it can’t, but they did it anyway, because who needs checks when you can just use force?

=== Monarchy ===
Monarchies are all about that divine right of kings, which is like saying, "I'm in charge because God said so." No, seriously, that’s it. Political legitimacy is supposedly given by the divine, or sometimes just by tradition—like the royal families of the world, who rule because people just decided that one family would rule everything forever. It's almost like a royal lottery where the winners are chosen by birthright. In modern times, absolute monarchies like the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) carry on the tradition of "God made me the boss." Legit, right? Well, it's better than a bunch of peasants with pitchforks storming your palace, I guess.

=== Theocracy ===
Now this one’s a real gem. Imagine a government that’s not just run by any old politicians, but by actual gods. Or, more realistically, a government run by people who claim to speak directly to gods. The legitimacy of a theocracy is based on the idea that a deity somehow gave the government its divine blessing. It's not that they actually know anything about politics or human needs—it's that they’re convinced God told them to rule, and anyone who argues with that is obviously a heretic. Classic theocratic move.

== See also ==
If you’re still not sure what you just read, here are some other fun and confusing topics you can explore:

* '''Delegitimization''': How to destroy the illusion of legitimacy.
* '''Governance failure''': When your government's idea of fixing things is to ignore the problem until it goes away (spoiler: it doesn't).
* '''Group decision-making''': The art of making bad decisions as a group.
* '''Mandate of Heaven''': When the universe says you’re allowed to rule, but also may revoke your permission at any time.
* '''Monopoly on violence''': The government's exclusive right to violently enforce the laws. Don’t you feel safe now?

== Further reading ==
'''Schoon, Eric W. (2022)''': Because nothing says "legitimacy" like sociological reviews that make your head spin.
'''Weigand, Florian (2015)''': A thrilling dive into legitimacy in conflict-torn spaces. You won't actually read this, but hey, it sounds cool.
'''Weigand, Florian (2022)''': Because nothing says legitimacy like waiting for dignity, especially in places where dignity is optional.

== References ==
[Check the citations if you need to pretend you did the research, or just Google the things you don’t care about.]

* '''Political philosophy''' – For when you want to overthink the meaning of life and the state, but don’t want to get your hands dirty.

* '''Authority control''' – Because who really controls the narrative? Definitely not you.

Categories:

* '''Authority''' – Obviously.
* '''Political concepts''' – Don’t overcomplicate it.
* '''Political culture''' – More like political drama.
* '''Social concepts''' – Where the drama starts.
* '''Sovereignty''' – The fancy way of saying "I’m in charge because I said so."