Talk:Legitimacy (political)

value laden
This is an extremely value-laden definition of legitimacy, specifically in that it comes from the perspective of Western liberal democracy. Arguably, the}} concept of legitimacy goes back more than a millenia. The concept of legitimacy itself may be borrowed from aristocratic legitimation; the "divine right" of kings and of bloodlines. EHG

aimed legtimacy through democratic, scientific, nationalistic means. Also one can argue that the central goal of *ANY* state is to foster legitimacy.

Dictatorship and totalitarianism
The central goal of a totalitarian apparatus can be described as the fostering of legitimacy. Through extensive media control and smothering of opposition, a totalitarian state attempts to foster support among the majority of the populace by discouraging critical thinking and presenting only a pro-state viewpoint.

However, many dictatorships involve less extreme forms of unilateral rule. These do not require total consent from the entire population, but only need loyalty among the elites and armed forces.

Because of the prevalence of democracy as the main source of legitimacy today, many modern dictators attempt to maintain a facade of democracy by staging show elections.

Roadrunner 21:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about Weber?
How can we talk about legitimacy in political science without at least mentioning Weber? I'd do it, if I had the time for it now... Maybe later... Otherwise, great work!

A bit of POV, I think
"Also, Weber had an extremely negative and pessimistic view of human nature, and believed that societies often went through cycles."

This is rather POV I think. Who's to say his view is "extremely negative" or "pessimistic"? Aren't those terms relative to a POV?

Methinks it needs rephrasing, but I'm not the one to do it. DrDimension 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy (political)
Does anyone object to moving this page to "Legitimacy (political)"? This concept isn't restricted to political science. – SJL 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

United States and Checks and Balances
"'A system of 'checks and balances' and control of one organ of the state by another (as in the United States, for example)'."

The above unsourced opinion of user chrisieboy smacks of POV. In order to cite only United States to back up a statement which cannot be factually proven one needs expert opinion. It is a well known fact that US President (executive) enjoys overwhelming powers which had traditionally skewed the system of checks and balances. Brothers in Arms (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not insert this statement, but it is quite correct. The US model is widely known as a system of "checks and balances." Please acquaint yourself with the subject matter before making ridiculous assertions like you have above. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you assert the statement is true then cite sources for the same. Do not simply make blanket 'statements of opinions'. What you insist keeping on is an opinion and not a matter of fact.There are lot of other countries which are also considered constitutionally and in practice having a balanced Executive, Judiciary and legislature. Please stop continued reverts! And don't reinsert unsupported personal opinions on WP. I am ok if you can bring in some sources to cite what you think is a "well known fact". A statement like the one you made is very often a disputed. In any case, since it is an unsupported POV and not a 'fact' please provide sources. And i know what i am talking here.

Brothers in Arms (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
the user "chrisie boy" continues to revert the changes being made by me and refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. He assumes bad faith of my edits by calling me 'socket puppet'in violation of WP:civil rules applicable to all users. I invite user chrisie boy to discuss the issue on this talk page instead of engaging in repeated reversions and threatening a probable edit war. Brothers in Arms (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Brothers in Arms is a known sock puppeteer and has been warned for incivility by an administrator. However, a reference has now been added. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User chrisie boy is not interested in discussions as is evident from the above messages. By adding a reference you are not contributing anything constructive. He is interested in squabbling with other users. I request him to quit complaining and engage in discussions.

Brothers in Arms (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not in the least bit interested in trying to engage with someone, recently blocked from editing, with persistent civility issues. I don't feed the trolls! Chrisieboy (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you user Chrisieboy for the addition of Reference. Please try to cite sources for any future edits you may make on WP. And i also suggest you cultivate the habit of discussing the issues before you revert edits of others.:) Cheer up. Don't loose your cool on WP edits.Brothers in Arms (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Different forms of Political Legitimacy unverifiable
Unlike the rest of the article the above section does not cite any sort of sources except for the source by chrisie boy while citing US as an example. This section needs sources. I request the original authors/editors to provide sources for the statements made in the article. If not cited with sources the section may be tagged appropriately. Brothers in Arms (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing Forms of Legitimacy for Monarchy
"Monarchy — In a monarchy, the divine right of kings establishes the political legitimacy of the rule of the Monarch (King or Queen); legitimacy also derives from the popular perception (tradition and custom) and acceptance of him or her as the rightful ruler of nation and country. Contemporarily, such divine-right legitimacy is manifest in the absolute monarchy of the House of Saud (est. 1744), a royal family who have ruled and governed Saudi Arabia since the 18th century."

At least these three forms of legitimacy are missing for Monarchs. I realize the divine right of kings is well-known, but these are other historical examples whose basis for legitimacy differ:

1) The Imperial Throne of China was based off the Mandate of Heaven, and not the divine right of kings 2) Golden Liberty describes a Monarchy whose legitimacy was based neither off the divine right of kings or a constitution, but off election 3) There are also Caliphates, which govern off a mixture of Islamic law, the common good, and sometimes election.

Shall we include them in some way or fashion? --  ~Scholarly  Breeze~   17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism
What of anarchists, who view all forms of government as illegitimate? 71.80.113.4 (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Better referencing needed
In the opening section of this article, the following statement is made:


 * Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite.

This is followed by the first reference, which is to the entirety of chapter 8 of Robert Dahl's Polyarchy.

This is not a proper reference for this statement. While this chapter does indeed seem to have relevance, it's a 65 page chapter in the context of a 200+ page book; moreover, the chapter covers a significantly broader subject matter (titled "The Beliefs of Political Activists") than just the effects/sources of legitimacy, let alone the scholarly consensus on that matter. Anyone looking to this reference to verify or clarify this statement is asked to read an extended piece of writing that may or may not even help them do that.

This seems like an important couple sentences for the content of the article, so I am hesitant to just delete it, but we can't just have sentences making strong implications of authoritative consensus without a clear reference.

Emptybathtub (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Move
Move to Legitimacy (politics). Johnsmith212254 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)