Power, Authority, Legitimacy
An organization can wield a great deal of power yet have no authority, nor any legitimacy. Goldman Sachs, for example, controls the Treasury Department outright, Mr. Obama's economic team indirectly, and keeps the major financial players in Congress on retainer while holding the American economy hostage. But Goldman operates in secret or it doesn't operate at all. A step up from Goldman, a state can wield both power and authority, but without legitimacy its survival depends upon raw force. When, for example, the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 the state still had both plenty of power and plenty of authority, but enough people disobeyed Moscow such as to require a choice: either the state could assert its authority through overwhelming violence or accede to change. Mikhail Gorbachev bravely chose the latter course. Everywhere, it's a simple fact: legitimacy is the cornerstone of modern states.
Looking around the world most first tier states enjoy unquestioned legitimacy. Most third tier states do not. In the middle, states like Mexico, or Iran, or even China, struggle constantly with legitimacy issues. Their solutions, if they find any, will no doubt follow the first tier model. The citizens of these states may eventually agree upon a system of rules that seems sufficiently fair to all concerned.
Again, a simple fact, fairly obvious, but often (almost always) overlooked: the system creates legitimacy. One never assesses a state's legitimacy or illegitimacy, even in part, as a function of the popularity of its leadership. Nor does one assess legitimacy in terms of the moral stature of the population, which is quite irrelevant.
Over time, if a state consistently delivers the public policies its citizens want, it's legitimate.
Every first tier state suffers from disconnects. Only one, however, has in modern history suffered chronically over a period as long as three or four decades. That would be the United States.
American voters have done their job: they've elected politicians who promised to satisfy their preferences. But politicians haven't delivered. Should we blame the voters? That's one approach, taken recently by Chris Hedges, Tony Judt, Jane Hamsher and quite a few others. A sudden spate of self-criticism from the left. Another approach is to blame our leaders — you can't toss a pebble on the internet these days without finding some recently disillusioned soul. All such complaints, though, have to do with either power or authority.
Nowhere do we see intelligent discussion regarding whether the government of the United States is legitimate or, if not, to what degree it is not, how it got that way, and what should be done about it. Assuming that the system is broken we can play by our current rules over and over and over, but we're going to keep on getting the same results. Assuming the system is broken — and I absolutely believe that it is — it does no good to complain about voters or politicians. The real question is legitimacy or, more precisely, how to get it back.
There are, indeed, only two constructive paths available: the first is to point out, insistently, that the government of the United States is in many fundamental respects illegitimate and, incidentally, completely out of step with the modern world; the second is to debate what alternative system of rules, what governing covenant, could be appropriate for our society.
This will take time.
Given the scale of the disconnect, it's inevitable.
Hopefully, the transition will be non-violent.
Posted by George Kenney on December 13, 2009 4:16 PM 
« Gang Aft Agley | Main | Religious Fundamentalism and the Rise of the Corporate State »
Comments
Thank you, George, for raising this issue of legitimacy.
I think about it a lot. I'm dismayed that you didn't get more comments responding to the article. I think this is one of the central issues of our day.
You said the system creates its own legitimacy--
Maybe it does in a practical sense, but I don't think we should give up yet on the founding documents. A major one, The Constitution, spells out the rules for us all and thereby establishes legitimacy. The rules have more or less worked for a couple hundred plus years.
OTOH, I think that the current apparatus, which has been ruling us since, I suppose, the end of the Second World War, has given up on the founding documents. (They were quaint!) But that doesn't mean that We the People ought to as well.
Anyway, as you say, the real question is legitimacy and how to get it back?
Let us look to the document itself for answers. Article V, to be exact.
(We can't talk about this until everybody goes and has a look at the provisions I'm talking about. I try to talk about this in my daily life, but no one knows what I'm talking about, because no one has read the document.)
People don't realize that We the People have a deal with those who run things, and that the rules are all spelled out in the Constitution. It's our contract, for goodness sake!
So, here's my solution: Let's have an Article V convention!
It's never been done before. It could be the best thing that our generation ever does. We could set things straight, throw out bums, and get what we want.
But first we have to get on the same page, and then read it! That page would be the one on which Article V of our very own Constitution is printed.
Or just look it up on Wikipedia.
The PTB would be quaking in their boots if we got a real Article V movement going.
It's perfect for the internet, so let's do it quickly, before we lose the internet, as we surely will if things keep going the way they are.
[Thanks, Caroline. Of course I agree. But to get there we've got to make legitimacy a legitimate issue. g.]
Posted by: caroline | December 17, 2009 6:39 PM