Can an undemocratic government be legitimate?

This is the mid-term paper of GPA 1095 "Issues of Political Philosophy", guided Mr. Chow Po Chung

Legitimacy has been an important word in the discipline of political philosophy and social science. And it is undoubtedly one of the vital concepts in justifying a government or a state. It is usually defined as rightfulness, by achieving which one authority’s act can be justifiable and rightful. “Where power is acquired and exercised according to justifiable rules, and with evidence of consent, we call it rightful or legitimate” [1]

One dealing with the legitimacy of a democratic government is much easier than that of an undemocratic government today. It is because a contemporary recognized democratic society, with its policies and elections according to law, regular shifting of the power holders in accordance with the orientation of the majority and the public discussion sphere, fulfill the condition of achieving legitimacy. On the other hand, undemocratic governments (e.g. Communist states) usually direct her fellow people in one official ideology. The whole society is a single ‘enterprise’ and the authority is legitimated in goal-rational terms.[2] Because of the lack of flow of information and difficulty in determining whether a goal is legitimate or not, the legitimacy of an undemocratic state has always been a controversy.

In the following paragraphs, I will start with clarifying the meanings and definitions of undemocratic government and legitimacy. Through examining the features and characteristics of them, I find that an undemocratic government cannot be legitimate. There is a certain relationship between democracy and legitimacy. A power holder cannot be regarded as legitimate without democracy. Only democracy satisfies the structure and significance of the concept of normative legitimacy.

What is undemocratic government?

For finding the answer of the question “Can an undemocratic government be legitimate?” we should start with asking ourselves what an undemocratic government is and what the criteria of achieving legitimacy are. Here I will begin with finding the meaning of the former.

What is undemocratic government? To know what a negative word signifies, the best way is to look up the meaning of its opposite. It means that we should know what democracy is. If a government or an authority does not reach the standard of democracy, we may define her as undemocratic.

From the dictionary definition, the word “Democracy” signifies “system of government by the whole people of a country, esp. through representatives whom they elect.” [3] However, it is not the end. We find that immediately we would be troubled by several questions. What is the meaning of people? What is the meaning of rule? Does “people” mean the whole adult population?[4] There are so many forms of democracy, how can we recognize what a democratic government is?

Among the enormous complicated forms and ideas, it is feasible to recognize some common features and criteria of democracy. The most widely used definition is given by Robert A. Dahl. In accordance with Dahl, there are at least five standards: Effective participation, all members of the association must have equal and effective opportunities to participate in presenting their views about an issue or a policy; Voting Equality, everyone must have an equal and effective chance to vote when the decision is made, and all votes must be regarded as having the same weight when counting the votes; Enlightened understanding, every member must have equal and effective opportunities for understanding and knowing relevant alternative policies or choices and their consequences or results; Control of the Agenda, Each member does have the opportunity in deciding what matters, businesses or issues to be put on the agenda and how they are put, that is, everyone has the chance of shaping the size, the form and the content of the agenda by different but equal ways; Finally, Inclusion of adults, that is “All, or at any rate most, adult permanent residents should have the full rights of citizen that are implied by the first four criteria” and all people are treated as political equal.[5]
Now we know what the basic criteria of democracy are, and this enable us to determine what undemocratic means. A democratic government must have the above five essential standards, without any one of which a government would be recognized as undemocratic. For instance, people in a state have the chance to participate effectively in discussing some political issues (Effective participation is fulfilled), but some people from a specific class do have more effectiveness and influential votes when they show their hands in the election (Voting equality is not achieved), then this government or association would still be deemed as undemocratic.

In the contemporary world, there are a lot of countries and governments can be judged as undemocratic. For instance, China (PRC), Singapore, Cuba, North Korea, some Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan are not thought as democratic because they do not satisfy the five standards of democracy. HKSAR, with the existence of an open discussion, participation sphere in politics issues and election of Legco, cannot be reside in the realm of democratic governments because of her lack of voting equality. They cannot have an equal vote in determining their political reforms and issues in many other aspects.


What is Legitimacy?

It would be even more troublesome in defining and elucidating the word “Legitimacy”. It can be defined as “the right to rule”, defined as “the belief in the rightfulness of a state, in its authority to issue commands, so that the commands are obeyed not simply out of fear or self-interest, but because they are believed to have moral authority, because subjects believe that they ought to be.” [6] That means one cannot simply use the concept of Power to justify the existence of an authority or a government. Power of issuing commands and carrying policies is the ability to get things done and Legitimacy is the “ascribed entitlement” to exercise the power. So, political authority is the combination of political power and legitimacy[7]. The former provides ruler the ability to rule while the latter give ruler a moral foundation.

There are at least two main streams used by Political philosophers and social scientists respectively. The most authoritative and influential scholar in drawing the border line of the word “legitimacy” is Max Weber. Weber, as a sociologist, did not reject or defend any views or conducts of a society in a particular context. What he concerned is the reason why a state is regarded as legitimate. To Weber, “There can be orientation toward valid authority even where its meaning (as generally understood) is not necessarily obeyed. The probability that the authority is to some extent held as a valid norm can also have its effect on behavior even where its meaning is evaded or deliberately violated.” [8] Thus his “Belief Theory” believed that the society is value-free and he what his “legitimacy” is a descriptive concept.

Weber did well in defining a descriptive “legitimacy”, but this definition contributes very little if we want to judge or identify the moral or rational basis for an authority. Weber did not provide a normative dimension of “legitimacy”. Through his “Belief Theory”, one can ask and answer the question of “Why is this authority legitimate?” but not “should this authority be legitimate?” He seemed to have ignored some basic or essential values or shard beliefs among the people. People’s belief is not totally determined by the holder of power. In my view, the condition and the nature of the society must be the generalization between the power holder and the subordinate. I do not mean they share the same power or they can bargain with each other equally. The generalize condition or state here means that each one have preserved some basic and essential principles or values. They may be suppressed or punished greatly and facing inequalities in social or religious aspects, they may be very angry, but they won’t overthrow the authority once they preserve the rights or something else derived from their basic values. Just as David Beetham said, “we are making the assessment of the degree of congruence, or lack of it, between a given system of power and beliefs, values and expectations that provide its justification. We are not making report on people’s belief in legitimacy”[9]

Besides criticizing Weber, David Beetham suggested that we should manage the topic “Legitimacy” in a normative approach advocated by political philosophers. He built up a normative structure of legitimacy. Through achieving all the criteria of the structure suggested, one authority can be deemed as legitimate. In the following I am going to use a normative structure of legitimacy based on Beetham’s suggestion for finding the answer of the raised question. It would be useless to use Weber’s descriptive approach to justify the legitimacy of a government as all the existing states are “legitimated” in the eyes of Weber. I am going to place undemocratic government under the structure of normative legitimacy. The compatibility of the definitions of two concepts would be the key of solving the problem.
The configuration of the normative structure of legitimacy

There are three distinct levels or elements in the normative structure or legitimacy. An authority or a government can be said to be legitimate if:

1. it conforms to established rules
2. the rules can be justified by reference to beliefs shared by both dominant and subordinate
3. there is evidence of consent by the subordinate to particular power relation[10]

The first one is the conformity with the established rules or regulation. There must be some existed understanding, which is tacit or explicit before the establishment of an authority or government. Every power struggler knows the rules of the game. It provides a legitimate way of seizing the power. Thus they must follow the written or unwritten rules derived by the conventions and customs in that particular circumstance to be legitimate in the process of becoming the power holder. Those who acquire the power out of the rules are illegitimate.

The second one is the justification of the authority in terms of shared beliefs. To gain the validity, an authority must have to be justified by some basic common interests and views. The policies, structures and the forming of the power must serve a recognizably general interest.

When dealing with this concept one has to bear in mind that no society has a perfect uniform beliefs. But it is believed there must be some basic common shares of beliefs among the people living in the same sphere. Without satisfying this minimum essence of understanding among the dominant and the subordinate, rules of the government will be in lack of legitimacy.

The third one “…involves the demonstrable expression of consent on the part of the subordinate to the particular power relation in which they are involved, through actions which provide evidence of consent.” [11] Through giving this “demonstrable expression of consent”, which play the role of a subjectively binding force, moral and normative component will be inbreathed into the power relation. And this consent also has a symbolic and declaratory force representing the subordinate and also the minorities. Without a system embodying this spirit of express consent, an authority will be considered as illegitimate.[12]

On the form of expressed consent, Beetham thought that consent should be analyzed from a different view in accordance with culture and context of that society. He said:

“Now some theorists would argue that consent is a distinctively modern component or condition of legitimacy…it therefore cannot be relevant to an understanding of legitimacy in other historical societies…What counts as consent, therefore, and from whom it is required to confer legitimacy on the powerful, is itself a culturally specific matter, determined by the conventions of a given society, rather than a definable absolutely.”[13]

It is clear that Beetham’s structure is contradictory. If the legitimacy structure is normative, then the criteria and the standard in building up the structure should also be normative. On the one hand, he said that legitimacy should not be seen under different circumstances as Weber suggested. On the other hand, he built up a normative structure based on a descriptive “expressed consent” which is analyzed under different cultures. Normative means what we ought to do. Thus Beetham falls in an antilogy. My view is that only election can embody the spirit of expressed consent of every adult. Even with active political participants, open discussion sphere and an enlightened or frank government, the consent would not be expressed without election because the government may ignore the participants through holding the power.

As a result, my normative structure would regard election as the only way to achieve the aim of “expressed consent”. Some may ask it would be difficult for us to analyze historical authority as there were seldom governments holding elections which allow most adults vote. And we cannot say that there are only a few of governments like Athens or Rome is legitimate. In my opinion, most of the governments in the history are not legitimate from the normative views. Those authorities did not provide basic rights and welfare and they were overthrown only by revolutions or rebellions. I deem that we can say those authorities were regard as legitimate in the eyes of descriptive legitimacy researchers and the government’s followers at that time but not normative backers.

Undemocratic government must have to succeed in reaching the above three standards simultaneously to be regarded as legitimate normatively. One cannot say an undemocratic authority normatively legitimate if she fulfills the first two level of the structure. A legitimate power holder must conform to established rules, be justifiable by common beliefs and give her people chances for expressing demonstrable consent.


Can undemocratic government be legitimate?

Now we can answer the question by placing an undemocratic government under the normative legitimate structure by linking the features of the two concepts. I will give my explanations in the following paragraphs.

1. Can undemocratic government conform to established rules?

An undemocratic government can conform to established rules. Here rules are not necessarily something written. And in the period of disorder or anarchy like the period of ChunQiuZhanGuo (春秋戰國), winning in the fighting and battles, using diplomatic stratagems and policies and assassinations are the established rules of the power game. Of course there are many examples of am undemocratic power holder get his rule through an illegitimate way. But we cannot deny that the established rule is not normative rules. It is only established by the society and there is no guarantee that it must be normative. So an undemocratic authority is able to be legitimate through following the ways of coming into the power derived from the established conventions and customs which may not be normative. And so that undemocratic government can satisfy the first level of the normative legitimate structure.

2. Can the rules of an undemocratic government be justified by reference to beliefs shared by both dominant and subordinate?

An undemocratic government can also satisfy this criterion. The common beliefs shared by the people can be divided into two main parts. First is the authoritative source of the rules. This source can be analyzed externally and internally. Every society is guided by ideology derived under specific condition and environment. For instance, middle Ages’ people believed in divine command but people today are convinced by scientific doctrine. This is the external source guiding the beliefs of the people; there are also different internal sources in different periods. Society in the past relied on elder and cultural leaders while people today see their representatives as the internal source of the authoritative ruler. On this aspect, an undemocratic government with no effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agendas and inclusion of the adults can also meet this criterion. It is because this common belief and interest is largely stemmed from the ideology, philosophy and technology in that specific period. Although there may have cases that undemocratic government may not be compatible with authoritative source of rule in that period. But it is undeniable that either a democratic government or an undemocratic one may be able to satisfy this criterion.

For the content of the rules, an undemocratic government can also reach the standard. The main point is that the policies and achievements made by the authority must have to demonstrate the common interest of different people in different class or associations. Also the authority has to distinguish the dominant from the subordinate. This differentiation ensures the dominance of the superior and the subordination of the inferior through determining qualified and unqualified from the throne. An undemocratic government, though without election, can still satisfy this requirement by giving a public discussion sphere and actively consulting her subordinates.

It is clear that undemocratic government does not equal to tyranny or dictatorial rule which totally or completely ignore voices and opinions of the people. Thus she can be justifiable by the common beliefs and interests once she does have effective participation and enlightened understanding. Undemocratic government can be very open and frank. She can welcome all the ideas from all the citizens and endure different –isms existed in her land. By generalizing these beliefs and interests shared by the people in different classes, she can be justifiable by people’s beliefs externally and internally.

3. Can undemocratic government give evidence of consent by the subordinate to particular power relation?

From the last paragraph, I said that an undemocratic power could be justifiable by the common beliefs and interests through being more enlightened. But this does not mean that she can be normatively legitimate. She cannot be regarded as normatively legitimate because she would not be able to give chances for the people to express consent. Equal Voting is the only way to express demonstrable consent. Without voting equality in the election, the government, with enlightened understanding and effective participation, is still undemocratic. And without election, the government can simply maintain the obedience of the people or keeping the law by coercion.

For instance, HKSAR government allows open and frank public sphere for discussion. And she will carry out after fully consultation and debate. But without voting, these consultations and debates cannot be seen as expressed consent but only some civil activities. These civil activities, without one man one vote, can still be ignored by the government. It is not a must for the power holder to listen to them. Article 23 is a good example in proving this. Moreover, adults are not able to have the control of the agenda in a undemocratic land. In my view, voting equality, control of the agenda and the inclusion of adults are more important in the concept of democracy, the reason is that the other two elements (effective participation, enlightened understanding) are some non-institutional and voluntary practices. A government can give these things to the people. But only voting equality in election and the control of the agendas do have binding force in through telling the power holder the truth and give the articulation opportunity to the people through which they can give a real demonstrable expressed consent. From the above, an undemocratic government cannot satisfy the above level of the normative structure.


Conclusion

Undemocratic government cannot be legitimate. Through examining the characteristics of the concept of democracy and normative legitimacy, we find that no matter how open and kind a non-democratic government is, her people won’t be able to demonstrate the expressed consent. An undemocratic government can conform the established rules and be justifiable by the common beliefs of the people under that particular and specific circumstance in the history determined by that condition and environment. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the aim of getting expressed consent cannot be achieved without equal voting and control of the agenda by every adult. Without fair and equal election, effective participation and enlightened understanding can only be regarded as the gift given by the power holder. And the power holder does not have to listen to you.

Undemocratic government cannot be legitimate for its omission of the vital features of being normative legitimacy. I strongly believe that only popularly elected government which protects individual rights; primarily civil liberty, legal equality and political freedom suggested by Kantian can be seen as normative legitimate.[14]


Bibliography


1. Alagappa, Muthiah. (1995) Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The quest for moral authority: Stanford University Press.
2. Beetham, David. (1991) The Legitimation of Power: Basingstoke: Macmillan.
3. Brich, Anthony H. (2001) The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy: London; New York: Routledge .
4. Dahl, Robert. (1998) On Democracy: Yale University Press.
5. Rigby. T.H (1982) Political Legitimation in Communist States: Macmillan.
6. Rosen, Allen. D (1993) Kant’s Theory of Justice: Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
7. Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary (Extended 4th edition) (1999).
8. Weber, Max. (1962) Basic Concepts in Sociology / Translated and with an introd. By H. P. Secher.: New York: Philosophical Library.

[1] David Beetham “Towards a Social-scientific Concept of Legitimacy.” Legitimation of Power, P.3 Macmillan 1991
[2] T. H. Rigby “Introduction: Political Legitimacy, Weber and Communist Mono-organizational Systems.” Political Legitimation in Communist States, P.12, Macmillan 1982
[3] Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary (Extended 4th edition), Oxford University Press, 1999
[4] Anthony H. Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, 2001, P.71
[5] Robert A. Dahl, On Democracy, Yale University Press, 1998, P.37-38
[6] Barker, Political Legitimacy, P.11
[7] Anthony H. Birch, The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy, P.58
[8] Max Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology, Citadel Press (1962), P.72
[9] David Beetham, P.11
[10] Beetham, David, P.16
[11] Beetham, David, P. 18
[12] Beetham, David, P.16-19
[13] Beetham, David, P.19
[14] Allen D. Rosen, Kant’s Theory of justice, P.115-116