Non Democratic Legitimacy Flashcards
Foundational myth
As Beetham (1991, p. 103)3 has stressed, “historical accounts are significant and contentious precisely because of their relationship to the legitimacy of power in the present.” Incumbents, ruling elites, and parties all refer to their role in the state‐building process in order to legitimate their rule. Particularly strong solidarity ties and claims to legitimacy are forged during periods of violent struggle such as war, revolutions, and liberation movements (Levitsky and Way, 2013, p. 5). Moreover, parties that emerge from a successful revolutionary or liberation struggle regularly claim (particularly as long as the founding generation is in power) that they embody the will of their people (Clapham, 2012).
Ideology
In line with Easton (1975), we understand ideology‐based legitimacy claims – that is, general narratives regarding the righteousness of a given political order – in broad terms. These claims or narratives may therefore include references to nationalism, societal models, and religion. Nationalism functions as an exclusive narrative that stresses the special stance of the nation vis‐à‐vis other countries (Anderson, 2006, p. 17). Post‐independence regimes often rely strongly on nationalism as a legitimation strategy (Linz, 2000, p. 227). Likewise, nationalism can be particularly pronounced following a change of government, with the new leadership seeking to strengthen national consciousness, or in electoral autocracies where leaders seek to garner support at the ballot box
Personalism
Weber (1968) refers to charisma as an important source of legitimacy. According to him (Weber, 1980, p. 133–4, 136), charismatic authority stems from the “extraordinary personality” and leadership qualities of an individual. A charismatic leader portrays himself or herself as chosen “from above” to fulfil a certain mission (Fagen, 1965, p. 275–7). Personalism‐based claims may also represent a discursive mechanism that emphasises the ruler’s centrality to certain achievements such as the nation’s unity, prosperity, and stability (Isaacs, 2010). Personalist legitimacy claims can therefore rely both on the leader’s populist charisma and on extraordinary leadership capabilities and expertise
International engagement:
While the literature on authoritarian regimes’ legitimation strategies usually focuses on their domestic dimension, authoritarian regimes also use international engagement to bolster their domestic legitimacy. In contrast to “external legitimacy,” which is understood as recognition by other states (Jackson and Rosberg, 1982; Burnell, 2006), we focus on the extent to which a regime refers to its international role in order to legitimate its rule domestically. A prominent role in international negotiations, for instance, may serve to strengthen legitimation for regimes that have little ability to draw on domestic sources of legitimation (Schatz, 2006). Using the term “externalization,” Dzhuraev (2012, p. 2) describes how political leaders can use their country’s role in international debates and arenas “as tools in manufacturing domestic legitimation” (see also Koesel and Bunce, 2013).
Procedures
Attempts to create (procedural) legitimacy can be based on elections and other rule‐based mechanisms for handing over power or on mechanisms for the implementation of policies. In his discussion of bureaucratic–military authoritarian regimes, Linz (2000, p. 186) stresses that these regimes go to considerable lengths to operate within a legalistic framework, despite the many arbitrary elements in their exercise of authority. Similarly, electoral authoritarian regimes use their electoral processes, deeply flawed as they might be, as a means to enhance the regime’s political legitimacy
Performance
Easton’s notion of specific support (1965) refers to regime legitimacy that stems from success in satisfying citizens’ needs. While specific or performance‐based support can be measured using proxies such as economic growth, inflation, and unemployment, we focus on the extent to which the regime either deliberately uses its achievements in fulfilling societal demands such as material welfare or security or, alternately, employs claims of achievements in the absence of real improvements in order to back up its claims to legitimacy (see Dimitrov, 2009 on economic populism). Finally, it is important to identify the target groups for each of these strategies. In our analysis, we follow Gilley (2009, p. 9), who – despite acknowledging the existence of so-called salient citizens – ultimately suggests focusing on all citizens as the referent objects, though he acknowledges that certain groups might be addressed in particular by claims to legitimacy. Based on insights that “no single resource appears adequate in itself” (Alagappa, 1995, p. 50), we argue that regimes need to simultaneously invoke various legitimation sources to build a robust legitimation strategy (Grauvogel and von Soest, 2014).
