Goya Foods CEO falsely says election was illegitimate, Trump is 'the real, the legiti

[Legion]

There are two principal approaches to assessing legitimacy.

One is concerned with normative standards to which an actor, institution or political order must conform in order to be considered legitimate.

In this approach there is a right way that an actor, institution or political order should exercise power.

A normative approach to state legitimacy, based on western liberal values typically understands a legitimate state as a state which features democratic elections and respect for human rights. Andersen (2012) termed the state-centered normative approach based on western liberal values the ‘state institutional-normative approach’, while Lemay-Hebert characterized it as ‘neo Weberian’, emphasizing its treatment of legitimacy, in terms of functionality of institutions, based on a Weberian conceptualization of the state (Lemay-Hebert, 2009, 2010).

Examples of this approach include Fukuyama, 2004; Rotberg, 2004; Paris, 2003, 2004; Ignatieff, 2003; and Kaplan, 2004, 2005. The UN employs a normative approach to legitimacy. Since the 1990s, the normative approach has increasingly been questioned by scholars and practitioners (c.f. Chandler, 2004; Clements, 2008; Teskey et al., 2012).

The second approach treats legitimacy or the ‘rightness of an authority’ as being determined by both the governed and the authorities in a given society. This approach tends to focus on the perceptions which people hold about an actor, institution or political order, but is also concerned with the factors that incentivise a society to consent to power. It is referred to as the descriptive or empirical approach (e.g. Papagianni, 2009; Gilley, 2006; Beetham, 1991, 2013; Roos & Lidström, 2014).

It is useful to identify which approach is being used, because an entity could be described as both legitimate and illegitimate based on whether a normative or empirical approach is being used. A state could be considered legitimate by its citizens, for example, despite failing to conform to the normative definition based on features such as democratic elections and respect for human rights, or vice-versa. In everyday use of the term legitimacy in the media and in development, the state institutional-normative approach is often used to evaluate the legitimacy of states.

The state institutional-normative approach is less relevant for evaluating armed non-state actors, although normative evaluations of non-state actors are often made based on the same values. Thus the Free Syrian Army is judged to be legitimate by international actors because it advocates a secular democratic state and the protection of human rights, whereas ISIL is judged to be illegitimate as it advocates an Islamic state and does not adhere to the liberal concept of human rights.

In his exploration of how to think about legitimacy and illegitimacy, Robert Lamb (2014) emphasizes the importance of not only identifying what entity is being evaluated for legitimacy/illegitimacy (which he termed the ‘conferee’) but who is making that judgement (the ‘referee’).

It follows that the legitimacy of individual actors, political parties, states or political settlements will vary according to who the referee is. Using the normative approach to evaluating legitimacy, the referee is the evaluator him/herself whereas, in the empirical approach, the referee is the population over which the conferee exerts authority.

https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/the-legitimacy-of-states-and-armed-non-state-actors/key-language-and-concepts/approaches-to-assessing-legitimacy-2/

[christiefan915]

That's what I asked.

Answer, Christiecrite.

If you think I claimed it you must have it in your Christienotes Don't you have them alphabetized, dated, tabbed and foot-noted, leggiecrite?

[christiefan915]

Is it?

So you can't prove it was legitimate either?

And didn't you claim that you don't have a Goodreads account?

The default position is that it was legitimate, so the burden of proof is on you and others who claim it was illegitimate, Counselor.

[christiefan915]

Didn't you claim that you don't have a Goodreads account?

Answer, Christiecrite.

I do not recall saying that so if you have info that proves otherwise, produce it.

[Legion]

Legitimacy has been heavily influenced by Weber in two ways.

The first is through the fragile state discourse which draws heavily on Weberian definitions of the state. Weber’s ideas on the ideal-type bureaucracy, based on legal rational principles, influenced an understanding of state strength in terms of capacity to provide for the security and well-being of its citizens, while state fragility is understood in terms of a lack of capacity to provide these services (DFID, 2005; OECD-DAC, 2007).

As fragile states are presumed to be suffering from weak legitimacy, strengthening legitimacy is thus imagined in terms of strengthening state capacity to provide services (Lemay-Hébert & Mathieu 2014).

For example, the OECD report on Service Delivery in Fragile States state that the ‘effectiveness of service delivery’ is the core component of ‘the legitimacy of the political order’ (2008a). In another OECD report which explores the dilemmas of state-building in fragile situations, it is proposed that state legitimacy can be threatened if the state does not deliver core services.

The second way that understandings of legitimacy in international development are influenced by Weber is in the dominant treatment of legitimacy in terms of sources. Weber identified three sources of legitimacy:

• legal rational (rules and procedural correctness);
• traditional;
• charisma.

Similarly, the OECD-DAC (2010) conceptualizes legitimacy in terms of sources which expand on Weber’s original categorization.

While the OECD-DAC 2010 report emphasizes the importance of shared beliefs and that sources of legitimacy are relevant only to the extent that the relevant constituency considers them to be so, the discussion of the potential sources of legitimacy under each of these categories tends towards a conceptualization of a legitimate political system based on the principles of liberal democracy (a normative understanding of legitimacy).

For instance, sources of input legitimacy identified include participation (although it is acknowledged that elections might not necessarily represent a source of legitimacy), transparency, checks and balances on centers of power, procedural norms, auditing of public funds, appropriate media coverage and public political debate, the principle of legality and rule of law following bureaucratic institutions. Patronage is acknowledged as a source of input/output legitimacy but, even with this inclusion, this account of the sources of input legitimacy fails to explain the high levels of legitimacy enjoyed by countries such as China, which feature few of these characteristics.


https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/the-legitimacy-of-states-and-armed-non-state-actors/key-language-and-concepts/dominant-understandings-of-legitimacy/

[Legion]

The default position is that it was legitimate.

Who told you that?

[Legion]

I do not recall saying that.

Is that your final answer?

[christiefan915]

Is that your final answer?

I do not recall saying "I don't have a GR account."

[christiefan915]

Who told you that?

A little birdie.

[Legion]

A little birdie.

That's what I suspected.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Evince= left wing idiot with a filthy foul mouth.

evince=Desh

Sooper-Stupid!

[Matt Dillon]

The default position is that it was legitimate, so the burden of proof is on you and others who claim it was illegitimate, Counselor.

Seems like you're spewing bullshit to me.

[tinfoil]

All of our courts and police systems have said it’s lies

You hate America if you believe these lies

You are such an NPC

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Nobody has proved that it's not legitimate and that's the real issue.

it has been proven to my standard.

[Legion]

it has been proven to my standard.

Nobody has proved that it's legitimate and that's the real issue.