A royal decree (December 31, 1622) ordered Philippine Dominicans not to interfere in government affairs. Dahl declared its legitimacy as a reservoir: As long as water is at a certain level, political stability is maintained, if it drops below the required level, political legitimacy is threatened. [1] A government universally recognized as controlling a nation and deserving of formal recognition, symbolized by the exchange of diplomats between that government and the governments of other countries. Abulof distinguishes between negative political legitimacy (NPL), which concerns the object of legitimation (response to what is legitimate), and positive political legitimacy (PPL), which concerns the source of legitimation (the response to who is the “legitimator”). [ref. needed] The NPL focuses on where to draw the line between good and evil; PPL with who should draw it in the first place. From the perspective of NPLs, political legitimacy derives from appropriate action; from the point of view of the PPL, it presupposes appropriate actors. In the tradition of the social contract, Hobbes and Locke focused on NPL (emphasis on security and freedom, respectively), while Rousseau focused more on PPL (“the people” as legitimators). Political stability probably depends on both forms of legitimacy. [16] The contemporary interpretation of Weber`s types of political legitimacy (traditional, charismatic, legal-rational) by French political scientist Mattei Dogan suggests that they are conceptually insufficient to understand the complex relationships that make up a legitimate political system in the 21st century.
[18] Moreover, Dogan proposed that traditional authority and charismatic authority are obsolete as contemporary forms of government; For example, the Islamic Republic of Iran (founded in 1979) governs through the priestly interpretations of the Quran of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This traditional authority has disappeared in the Middle East; that the exceptions to the verification of the rules are Islamic Iran and Saudi Arabia. [clarification needed] [ref. needed] Moreover, Weber`s third type of political legitimacy, rational-legal authority, exists in so many permutations that it can no longer be constrained as a kind of legitimate authority. [clarification needed] In a theocracy, the legitimacy of government derives from the spiritual authority of a god or goddess. Empirical approaches emphasize the subjective aspect of democratic legitimacy. If people believe that existing political orders or laws are appropriate and obedient, then those orders and laws are legitimate. Using surveys and other empirical methods, researchers are trying to uncover these subjective beliefs about democratic legitimacy. Nevertheless, it is not easy to measure this phenomenon accurately, because legitimacy is an abstract concept. Therefore, it is usually measured indirectly by asking questions about political trust. Empirical studies in Western countries show that trust in almost all advanced democracies has been lost.
However, there are significant differences in what this trust gap relates to. Ruling parties and leaders face a high degree of distrust, and many institutions that have central functions for classical liberal democracies such as parliament, parties, and public bureaucracies face low trust. Yet only small minorities are dissatisfied or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in their countries, and even fewer people are in favour of radical change. Large majorities still cling to their democratic systems. The political legitimacy of a civilian government derives from the convergence between autonomous constituent institutions – legislative, judicial, executive – united for the national common good. One of the ways civil society gives legitimacy to governments is through public elections. There are also those who reject the legitimacy of public elections, pointing out that the level of legitimacy that public elections can grant depends significantly on the electoral system that organizes the elections. In the United States, this problem has arisen, how voting is affected by gerrymandering,[8] the ability of the United States Electoral College to produce winners through minority rule and the discouragement of voter turnout outside the swing states,[9] and the repeal of part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. [10] Another challenge to the political legitimacy of elections is whether marginalized groups such as women or prisoners are allowed to vote or not. [ref. needed] I believe that the response of the French Government has been entirely appropriate in this regard so far.
Legitimacy is an individualized belief in the legitimacy of a rule or ruler. It has a collective impact when it is widespread in a society. In domestic political life, these effects may include a stable social order that appears to be consensual. That is what we mean by “legitimate regime” and “legitimate authority”, and that is what we aspire to in post-conflict societies. The effects of collectively legitimized rules in international political life include social order, but perhaps also the end of international anarchy. Since the concept of “anarchy” between States depends on the absence of legitimate rules, the degree to which structures of international authority are considered legitimate is also the degree to which the international system cannot be considered anarchic. Dockier, a prominent leader of the Levelers at the time of the English Commonwealth, was shot dead on the orders of the government. A few years ago, designer John Galliano was fined by the government for sharing such anti-Semitic sentiments in public. It is easy to identify attempts to create legitimacy, but difficult to judge whether these efforts are successful.