Talk:Legitimacy (political science)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
- Addressed. I added 3 different types of legitimacy other than democratic. --Shibboleth 18:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It also comes from the Lockean thesis. The relative neglect of the concept in modern Western political discourse is partly responsible for the decline in respect for democracy as a viable and preferred system (for Western consciousness, at least).
I don't think dictatorship and totalitarianism represents a different type of legitimacy. All of the major dictatorial and totalitarian regimes claimed legtimacy through democratic, scientific, nationalistic means. Also one can argue that the central goal of *ANY* state is to foster legitimacy.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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!
[edit] 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)
