NOTES ON LEGITIMACY

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

/* Written 21 Jul 6:00am 1997 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* ------------------" Notes on Legitimacy "-------------------- */

INTERPRETING LEGITIMACY
***********************
There have been some discussion about SLORC and its legitimacy on the Net
(most keenly by one of our friends from Switzerland). In this, it is found
that the term "legitimacy" may be referred to its varying meanings
alongwith the content of discussion. For example, the U.S.Committee for
Refugee, in one of its report, states "increased international interaction
with SLORC furthers SLORC's efforts to boost its legitimacy". That
statement in connection with "legitimacy" may contradict, if not taken a
correct choice of the meaning, with the statement by Human Rights Law Group
of "international organizations may accord recognition to Myanmar does not
imply the legitimacy of the SLORC regime". These two statements, in fact,
are not in contradiction since they referred to different meanings of the
term "legitimacy". Following, I summarized various interpretation of
the term "legitimacy".

In the most common use, the legitimacy of a government is considered to be
directly related to democratic process(that is, the government must not be
a dictatorship) and the population obeyed the rulings of that government
[1.Dictionary of Politics, 6th Edition, 1978, by Walter J.Raymond,
SJD. PH.D.]:

LEGITIMACY: A notion applicable to state craft whereby, as long as the
            electorate (or the people in general) obey the government in
            power (provided that it is not a despotic dictatorship) and
            obey the law to the extent that government can sustain itself,
            that government is considered legal and legitimate. Also, the
            basis on which the government-of-the-day may command obedience
            and use power with authority.

A much wider meaning of legitimacy is given by [Dictionary of Politics,
2nd Edition, 1993, by David Robertson]. According to D. Robertson, not only
the "elected governments" can have the legitimacy, any government-in-power
may be considered to have some form of legitimacy; and the concept of
legitimacy is connected with governmental power:

LEGITIMACY: Legitimacy is both a normative and empirical concept in
            political science. Normatively, to ask whether a political
            system is legitimate or not is to ask whether the state, or
            government, is entitled to be obeyed. As such the idea of
            legitimacy is connected with the legal concepts of de jure and
            de facto power. Whatever the accepted grounds of political
            obligation may be, legitimacy refers to these. Its more
            interesting application, however, may be in the empirical
            usage, especially in political sociology. Here the
            concentration is principally on how any given political system
            comes to be seen as 'legitimate' by a majority of its citizens.
            Why do most citizens of the USA and the People's Republic of
            China see their government as entitled to require their
            obedience when, presumably, people are much the same in both
            countries but policies and structures of the state ore very
            different ? This is the question addressed by those who study
            legitimacy as an empirical fact rather than a philosophical
            problem. ...........................
            ....... Thus democracies tend to argue for their legitimacy
            in terms of giving voters what they immediately want, while
            other political systems may offer general principles to support
            their right to command. Socialists states may focus on the
            ultimate benefit to workers, right-wing juntas on some sense of
            traditional national identity.

More clearer explanation of legitimacy is given by [The Dictionary of
20th-Century World Politics, 1st Edition 1993, by J.M.Shafritz et.al] as:

LEGITIMACY: 1. A descriptive aspect of a social institution, a government
            or a family for example, that has both a legal and a perceived
            right to make binding decisions for its members. Only a public
            can grant legitimacy to an institution. Legitimacy is both a
            specific legal concept, meaning that something is lawful, and
            at the same time and amorphous psychosociological concept
            referring to an important element in the social glue that holds
            institutions together. The German sociologist Max Weber
            (1864-1920) is the foremost analyst of the legitimacy of
            governing structure. He asserted that there were three pure
            types of legitimate authority: charismatic (in which the
            personal qualities of a leader command obedience); traditional
            (in which custom and culture yield acquiescence); and legal (in
            which people obey laws enacted by what they perceive to be
            appropriate authorities). 2. The quality of an administration
            that has come to power through free elections or established
            constitutional procedures. Thus a government imposed by
            military force may lack legitimacy. As U.S. Ambassador to the
            UNited Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrik has said: "A government is
            not legitimate merely because it exists"( Time, June 17,
            1985,).

According to the note above, the concept of "1. legitimacy" can, in fact,
be applied in descriptive sense to any social or political institutions,
including governments. It can also be noted that the meaning  of
"2. legitimacy" is more commonly referred in the writings.

In my opinion, the most comprehensive and the best interpretation for the
term "legitimacy" is given by [A New Dictionary of Political Analysis, 1st
Edition 1991, G.Roberts and A.Edwards.]. Their note regarding to legitimacy
is:

LEGITIMACY: A characteristic of the exercise of political power when that
            power is believed to be in accordance with certain principles
            and practices. The term may be applied normatively, positively,
            or descriptively: normatively when power is judged worthy of
            acceptance according to some coherent set of standards, such as
            right or justice; positively when power is exercised within the
            limits laid down by law and constitution, by the persons and
            according to the procedures so prescribed; descriptively when
            power is more or less generally accepted, by those over whom it
            is exercised, to be in accordance with whatever principles they
            happen to hold. Political science is primarily concerned with
            the beliefs and practices actually present within a system, and
            so uses 'legitimacy' principally in the descriptive sense. The
            exact nature of principles and practices that confer legitimacy
            vary from society to society, and over time: divine authority,
            natural law, constitutional settlement, the rule of law,
            democratic decisions or elections, and hereditary descent,
            being common example.

            Legitimacy is crucial for the operation of government, and for
            the survival of the political system. All government depends on
            some belief in its right to exercise power, even though that
            belief may never be unanimous and may sometimes be limited to
            key elements of the state apparatus. Governments will therefore
            seek to justify the form and content of their rule by reference
            to those principles that seem most cogent. The production of
            appropriate beliefs, whether by the conscious creation of
            ruling groups or by unintended social processes, is referred to
            as 'legitimation'.

In the domain of politics, every institution/person has to derive "some
form of legitimacy", although the process of "legitimation" can differ from
institution to institution. For example, a human rights organization (or
activist) may request public to observe certain standards, referring to
natural justice. In this case, such organization is deriving its legitimacy
from natural justice, just as a monk or clergy making reference to the
religious scripts or a Judge of the High Court interpreting Constitution.
On the otherhand, governments in democracies, based on their popular
mandate, may derive its legitimacy from popular opinion and demand the
public to obey a certain set of rules. Just as well, the military juntas,
such as SLORC, may demand the public to obey its rulings based on various
grounds, such as national security, etc.

[It's worth noting that human rights organizations (& activists) generally
derive its "legitimacy" from consultations, not with the public opinion,
principally with natural justice, etc (Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, for example). This stance may probably have led some people to
charge human rights activists as "Self-appointed Gurus" or "Dictatorial"
etc. Furthermore, there are no such things in the world of activists' as
"demanding obedience" and "exercising power". Instead, there are
"appealing for co-operation" and "generating influence".]

THE SLORC AND ITS LEGITIMATION
*******************************
For students of political science (i.e. we -the activists- all are), any
process by which the SLORC government can increase its authority on Burmese
population is to be seen as the 'legitimation'. In fact, any action that
can create the impression to the people of Burma of "SLORC is in charge"
or "Everything is under control" must be considered as legitimation for
SLORC. In countering the SLORC's moves, it is as a matter of one's choice
which process can become an effective legitimation for SLORC. For example,
the visit of President Suherto to Rangoon can be considered, in this
context, as providing some legitimacy to SLORC (Note: this is the case when
the Burmese population admire President of Indonesia and cared about
his visit). In the case of SLORC wishing to join ASEAN, there appears to be
some element of legitimation for SLORC. Then again, it is up to one's own
judgment on how much will it be effective on the Burmese population.

With best regards, U Ne Oo.

/* Endreport */