Legitimacy and political stability (legitimation crises).

 

So, what is legitimacy? We can describe it as rightfulness of a regime or system of rule. The idea of legitimacy is linked to the question of social and political obligation of the ruling classes. Therefore, the biggest contribution to the understanding of legitimacy as a social phenomenon was provided by Max Weber. He proposed a comprehensive theoretical approach to the issue by distinguishing 3 types of authority.

The first type is traditional authority. Such kind of legitimacy is based on long-established customs and traditions, and seen by the public as being sanctified by the history. The personalities who represent ruling class are seen as infallible. The best examples of this type of legitimacy we can easily find amongst tribes in Africa.

The second form of legitimacy is charismatic authority. This form of authority is based on the ruler’s personality, that is, on his or her charisma. Usually this kind of authority has some drawbacks. For example, as charismatic authority is not based on formal rules or procedures, it often has no limits. The leader is some kind of Messiah, who is unquestionable. Also so closely is authority linked to a specific individual, that it is difficult for the system of personal rule to outlive its founding figure.

The third type is legal-rational type. According to Weber, it’s one of the best, because is based on the set of rules and regulations. Western democracies are believed to be the countries with legal-rational legitimacy – because ruling classes are subject to obey formal, legal rules and restricted by them. In large, legitimacy is all about the right and lawfulness of one group or person to exert power over the others. And no matter who is in authority – president, chancellor or prime-minister – they are chosen in a legal way, usually, by the people.

 

Theories of Representation.

There is no single theory of representation and that means that each region or country should choose what model of representation to use. There is number of such models.

Trustee model. That model assumes, that, once elected, people should exercise their own judgment, no matter what the electorate wants. That, mostly elitist, point of view was supported by the prominent UK-politician Edward Burke – his main point was that high level of education (and the elected usually have one) makes people more responsible socially. That presumption was fiercely criticized by the democrats – because that fact is rather arguable and because the simple fact of independent judgment will undermine the underlying principles of democracy.

Delegate model. Delegate is nearly the same as the trustee – however, delegates are thought not to have the opportunity to act on their own – all the activities are closely bound to the interests of their constituents. The supporters of that model favor the use of referendums. However, that model seems to be rather ineffective – because, being restricted, politicians will have to act narrowly, unable to mobilize others or provide vision and inspiration. That will also lead to conflicts and mutual hatred between different interest groups inside the society.

Mandate model. The mandate model is closely connected to the ideas of party discipline, voting behavior. It provides something neutral between the above mentioned models. It assumes, that having won elections, party gets (receives) a popular mandate – that allows them to act rater independently from the public. However, their actions are restricted by the party discipline – that provides the guidelines for the coordinated behavior. The opponents of that model assume that the results may be actually influenced by the irrational factors – and no one knows what affects the voters’ behavior. All the way, it means that popular mandate may be given to the irresponsible groups.

Resemblance model. That model is based on the idea that government should be formed as a microcosm – resembling society structure. Ideally, that would mean the same proportional contents. However, that will mean that government has not only the strong sides of the society, but the weak ones as well. Secondly, such composition of government will demand the electorate to be classified on the grounds of gender, nationality, race, income, education and so on – that is completely unacceptable.