Constitutional Legitimacy

The problem of constitutional legitimacy is to establish why anyone should obey the command of a constitutionally-valid law. A lawmaking system is legitimate if there is a prima facie duty to obey the laws it makes. Neither consent of the governed nor benefits received justifies obedience. Rather, a prima facie duty of obedience exists either (a) if there is actual unanimous consent to the jurisdiction of the lawmaker or, in the absence of consent, (b) f laws are made by procedures which assure that they are not unjust. In the absence of unanimous consent, a written constitution should be assessed as one component of a lawmaking system. To the extent a particular constitution establishes lawmaking procedures that adequately assure the justice of enacted laws, it is legitimate even if it has not been consented to by the people. This account of constitutional legitimacy does not assume any particular theory of justice, but rather is intermediate between the concept of justice and the concept of legal validity

Institutional Legitimacy

Political legitimacy is best understood as one type of a broader notion, which I call institutional legitimacy. An institution is legitimate in my sense when it has the right to function. The right to function correlates to a duty of non-interference. Understanding legitimacy in this way favorably contrasts with legitimacy understood in the traditional way, as the right to rule correlating to a duty of obedience. It helps unify our discourses of legitimacy across a wider range of practices, especially including the many evaluations we increasingly make of international institutions of various sorts, but also including domestic institutions

SaveDisney.com and Activist Challenges: A Habermasian Perspective on Corporate Legitimacy

This study develops a Habermasian framework for evaluating and generating challenges to organizational legitimacy. The launch of the SaveDisney.com web site represents an innovative example of an Internet-based activist public successfully challenging a corporation’s legitimacy and advocating for changes in corporate governance. Legitimacy research has focused on strategies used by organizations to build legitimacy (e.g., Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Metzler, 2001), but scholars rarely address how publics challenge legitimacy claims. Using Habermas’ conceptualization of communicative action and legitimacy to explore the SaveDisney.com case offers insight into ways that activist publics successfully challenge and reject the legitimacy claims of powerful corporations

Legitimacy in conflict: concepts, practices, challenges

The study of legitimacy in situations of conflict and peacebuilding has increased in recent years. However, current work on the topic adopts many assumptions, definitions, and understandings from classical legitimacy theory, which centers on the relationship between the nation-state and its citizens. In this introduction, we provide a detailed critical overview of current theories of legitimacy and legitimation and demonstrate why they have only limited applicability in conflict and post-conflict contexts, focusing on the three main areas that the articles included in this special issue examine: audiences for legitimacy, sources of legitimacy, and legitimation. In particular, we show how conflict and post-conflict contexts are marked by the fragmentation and personalization of power; the proliferation and fragmentation of legitimacy audiences; and ambiguity surrounding legitimation strategies

Tying legitimacy to political power: Graded legitimacy standards for international institutions

International institutions have become increasingly important not only in the relations between states, but also for individuals. When are these institutions legitimate? The legitimacy standards fo..

Riots, demonstrations, strikes and the Coalition programme

The current UK government’s policies include headlong spending cuts and a far-reaching restructuring of public provision. State welfare arguably contributes to political legitimacy and social stability, as well as to better social conditions and economic prosperity. The fact that current policies bear disproportionately on lower income groups may damage legitimacy. This article analyses a dataset covering 26 countries for more than two decades to show that spending cuts, privatisation and increases in poverty undermine legitimacy. It uses a direct measure of legitimacy in terms of the frequency of riots and political demonstrations and strikes rather than the usual indirect measures in terms of attitudes and trust in government. Findings in relation to the increased work-centredness of the benefit and labour market reforms are more equivocal: a stricter benefit regime may not undermine legitimacy

Crowd-sourced legislation and politics: the legitimacy of constitutional deliberation in Romania

Constitutional reform is a tedious process that requires long periods of time, a relatively broad consensus among political actors, and, often, popular approval. In spite of these, Romania has changed its constitution once (2003) and witnessed several unsuccessful revisions. The most recent attempt, in 2013, introduced a deliberative dimension in the form of a constitutional forum. This article investigates the legitimacy of this deliberative practice using a tri-dimensional approach: input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Our qualitative study relying on direct observation and secondary data analysis concludes that, although input and throughput legitimacy were achieved to a great extent, the output legitimacy was low

Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy

This article offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of Eric Heinze’s book Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2016). Heinze’s project is to formulate and defend a more theoretically complex version of the idea (also defended by people like Ronald Dworkin and James Weinstein) that general legal prohibitions on hate speech in public discourse compromises the state’s democratic legitimacy. We offer a detailed synopsis of Heinze’s view, highlighting some of its distinctive qualities and strengths. We then develop a critical response to this view with three main focal points: (1) the characterisation of democratic legitimacy as something distinct from (and whose demands aren’t identical with those of) legitimacy per se; (2) the claim that the requirements of democracy are hypothetical, rather than categorical, imperatives; and relatedly (3) the question of how we should reconcile the requirements of democratic legitimacy with the costs that may follow from prioritising democratic legitimacy. We argue that there are significant difficulties for Heinze’s account on all three fronts

Misunderstood or lacking legitimacy?

In spite of the rising interest in marketing within professional service firms in the last twenty years, past research has identified a reluctant acceptance and application of marketing within these organisations. The present paper will debate whether this is due to lack of understanding of the role of marketing, lack of acceptance as a valid management discipline suitable for professional services or lack of legitimacy as a profession in its own right. A brief overview of the role of marketing will be followed by a discussion on the professions, professional legitimacy and the professional organisation. Qualitative research was done in the form of in-depth interviews with marketing executives and accountancy and law professionals in fourteen firms across the UK. The research has revealed generational differences, misconceptions and outright conflict leading to resistance in the introduction and application of marketing, although the professionals have individually practiced a wide variety of marketing activities in their pursuit of gaining and maintaining clients. There has been a conspicuous resistance to the acceptance of marketing as a management tool within certain firms. The findings have opened up the spectre of inter-professional competition on legitimacy grounds

The legitimacy of regulation

I wish to address the topic of property rights and environmental regulation, chiefly the land use regulation that takes place when a rule is made in a plan under the Resource Management Act 1991, the RMA. There has been a lot written on the topic, but mostly by advocates of property rights and critics of regulation. I wish to clear out some of the misconceptions and bring some balance to the debate. My proposition is that it is legal, constitutional, principled, and ethical to regulate the use of land, Land use regulation cannot be dismissed if we are to make progress on amenity, natural character, ecological integrity, biodiversity, and sustainability. Policymakers should remain undeterred by the possibility that RMA regulation will affect the rights of property owners. I will not argue that all land use planning and regulation is done well, nor will I say that they are the only way to solve environmental problems; indeed it would be impossible to agree with either suggestion. I will simply argue that planning and land use regulation have a proper place in the scheme of things