Legitimacy

About: Legitimacy is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 26153 publications have been published within this topic receiving 565921 citations.

The Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Polarized Polity

Abstract: Conventional political science wisdom holds that contemporary American politics is characterized by deep and profound partisan and ideological divisions Unanswered is the question of whether those divisions have spilled over into threats to the legitimacy of American political institutions, such as the US Supreme Court Since the Court is often intimately involved in making policy in many issue areas that divide Americans—including the contested 2000 presidential election—it is reasonable to hypothesize that loyalty toward the institution depends on policy and/or ideological agreement and partisanship Using data stretching from 1987 through 2005, the analysis reveals that Court support among the American people has not declined, nor is it connected to partisan and ideological identifications Instead, support is embedded within a larger set of relatively stable democratic values Institutional legitimacy may not be obdurate, but it does not seem to be caught up in the divisiveness that characterizes so much of American politics—at least not at present

The logic of legitimacy: Bootstrapping paradoxes of constitutional democracy

Abstract: Many have claimed that legitimate constitutional democracy is either conceptually or practically impossible, given infinite regress paradoxes deriving from the requirement of simultaneously democratic and constitutional origins for legitimate government. This paper first critically investigates prominent conceptual and practical bootstrapping objections advanced by Barnett and Michelman. It then argues that the real conceptual root of such bootstrapping objections is not any specific substantive account of legitimacy makers, such as consent or democratic endorsement, but a particular conception of the logic of normative standards—the determinate threshold conception—that the critic attributes to the putatively undermined account of legitimacy. The paper further claims that when we abandon threshold conceptions of the logic of legitimacy in favor of regulative-ideal conceptions, then the objections, from bootstrapping paradoxes to the very idea of constitutional democracy, disappear. It concludes with considerations in favor of adopting a more demanding conception of the regulative ideal of constitutional democracy, advanced by Habermas, focusing on potentials for developmental learning.

Summit theatre: exemplary governmentality and environmental diplomacy in Johannesburg and Copenhagen

Abstract: Global summits – such as the 2002 Johannesburg Summit and the 2009 Copenhagen COP15 – can be seen as theatrical techniques of environmental governmentality. Summits such as these, which do not produce new international agreements or strengthen environmental regimes, are commonly regarded as failures. However, they can also be viewed as moments of political theatre, performative enactments of legitimacy and authority, and sites for the communication of particular examples of responsible conduct. This political theatre is not a distraction from the real business of governing the global environment, but rather it is a primary technique of government at a distance. Summits function as ‘exemplary centres’ for a global audience, although their mobilisation of particular stages, scripts, casts and audiences remains open to subversion and conflict. The symbolic, theatrical and performative dimensions of summitry are rarely theorised, but their implications are profound, not only for responses to the ecological cr...

Nongovernmental Organizations and International Law

Abstract: This article examines NGOs and their advocacy activities aimed at influencing international relations. The article addresses longstanding issues such as the legal status of NGOs, as well as new problems such as whether NGO lobbying in intergovernmental forums is democratically legitimate. In doing so, the article draws upon past scholarship to shed light on the guiding ideas in the contemporary debate regarding NGOs. Part I examines issues regarding the identity of NGOs and then catalogs the ways that state practice incorporates NGOs into authoritative decision making. Part II looks at the legal status of NGOs in international law. Part III considers how NGOs have transformed international law over the past century. Part IV dives into the ongoing debate about the democratic legitimacy of NGO participation and seeks to clarify the conceptual underpinnings of the legitimacy of such participation. Finally, Part V asks whether intergovernmental decision makers have a duty to consult NGOs.

Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? The Relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe Debate for Third World Politics:

Abstract: In recent decades, one cannot have failed to notice the spread of Western liberal democracy throughout the world, whether in Eastern Europe or many parts of the Third World. (1) Yet the ascent of liberal democracy has been accompanied by "ethnic" nationalisms, religious "fundamentalisms," civil wars, and genocide. Furthermore, much as in the West, in those developing countries with already well-entrenched liberal democratic regimes, there has been growing public dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. This unease is evidenced by such phenomena as the rise of popular protest and social movements, lower voter turnout, and the inability of public institutions to meet citizens' demands and needs. Jurgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe speak directly to this "crisis of liberal democracy." Both are democratic theorists who, while defending the gains of Western liberal democratic regimes, are critical of them, believing them to be far from sufficient or complete. It is not enough, Habermas and Mouffe contend, to have the outward trimmings and institutions of liberal democracy (elections, parliaments, rule of law, and so on); we also need to ensure the quality and inclusiveness of democratic processes in the multiple spheres of social life and within all public institutions. Many of the sociocultural problems of nationalism, religious resurgence, and popular protest noted above, they argue, are precisely the product of political neglect and exclusion by regimes purporting to be democratic. Thus, both theorists make a compelling argument for the need to deepen or extend democracy. However, Habermas and Mouffe differ on how to bring this about. Habermas's vision, which he labels "deliberative democracy," relies on reasoned and inclusive public deliberation that is geared to reaching consensual decisions. His arguments foreground concerns about legitimacy and (universal) justice, concerns that he believes are ignored by poststructuralists at their peril. Mouffe's (poststructuralist) vision of democracy is critical of Habermas's defense of rationality and universalism, believing these to be inimical to pluralist societies. Her "agonistic pluralism" accentuates ways for democratic politics to represent difference. Thus, the debate between the two theorists rests on how best to promote democratic participation and decision making without impeding sociocultural difference. To put it another way, the debate hinges on democratically representing difference without thereby sanctioning injustice and intolerance. In this article, I call attention to several significant dimensions of the debate. As already noted, while both theorists valorize, criticize, and wish to extend liberal democracy, each does so from a different ontological standpoint. (2) In this sense, each one's differences bring out the strengths and limits of the other's democratic theory. To appropriate Richard Bernstein's words from another context, in many ways, each is "each other's other"; their debate can be seen as an "allegory of the 'modern/postmodern' condition" and is a "juxtaposed rather than an integrated cluster of changing elements that resist reduction to a common denominator, essential core, or generative first principle." (3) This being the case, I do not attempt to reconcile the differences between the two theorists or integrate their democratic visions; rather, believing that (and showing) the tensions between them to be irresolvable but fruitful and educative, I treat both theorists agonally to highlight some of the limits, strains, a nd possibilities of contemporary Third World democratic politics. As compelling and relevant as Habermas's and Mouffe's democratic theories may be, surprisingly little work has been done to relate these theories to the political challenges of the Third World. A voluminous (and still growing) literature exists on Habermas's critique/vision of Western democracy, but very little exists on its application to the developing world. …