On Governmental Legitimacy

 On Governmental Legitimacy

 This abstruse theme of uttermost inextricability is subject to fervent debate since the terminology of abstract mechanisms claims well-defined boundaries and, from time to time, the lack of a common understanding of the terminology might engender misperceptions and misconceptions thereon, causing heated debates. One must be apt enough in both argumentation and definition, which are indispensable to the healthy development of this topic. Ergo, it is judicious to begin with the thorough delineation of the lexicon from my individual point of view.

 First and foremost, the state is a fictive entity that operates equally and equitably regarding everyone within previously defined and internationally recognised borders with an absolute and incontestable monopoly over staple services, administered and received by society, such as healthcare, justice, and, in some cases, private property, etc. It regulates the administrative and bureaucratic interactions between diverse institutions; the state is not only the regulator of those institutions, but the creator thereof, too. The state is not an alive being per se; nonetheless, it is an abstract body of living components that constitute it so as to give it the form and functions of an alive organism: the healthily regulated society incarnate.

 In total accordance with my aforementioned statements, we can clearly allege, as to the concretisation of the invisible structure, biology in other words of the state, that politics is the cardiology of the state for it functions as the indispensable centre of vital decisions for the state itself; logistics, the angiology for it is liable for the fluid and uninterrupted transportation of material, be it luxurious or basic, from within or without administrative organs; diplomacy, the respiratory system for it enables the state to interact with its ambient environment and, ipso facto, to exist, because a state dies if it cannot assert its right of existence by means of convincing arguments on an international scale; bureaucracy, the neurology for it is the thinking appendage that busies itself with the paperwork of this creature, the state, which can evolve occasionally into a monster, and justice, the immune system for it is entrusted with the essential obligation of warding off individual or institutional viruses in pursuance of the prevention of a possible contagion, whether it be at the social, bureaucratic, diplomatic, or administrative level. This way, the notion of state takes a palpable form on our minds, though the list could be extended furthermore in case you would like to further materialise it. In line with this analogy, we can say that even the slightest disruption of one of these systems impairs the already fragile health of the government. I say fragile for the state, if not prudently governed, becomes fast crumbly and collapses. Henceforth a state is not liable to inalienable human rights when its existence itself is imperiled; a nuisance is eradicated, not solved: the state never genuflects, before the state, we genuflect.

 Notwithstanding the last phrases of my previous paragraph, which emit an impression of state infallibility, the state must devoutly stick to inalienable and universally acknowledged human rights so long as its existence is not at stake. This declaration leads me to the second pillar of our topic: legitimacy.

 Legitimacy is, in my own personal perception, the right and aptness to execute an action. For a government, this constitutes the right to rule. This right originates in the recognition and acknowledgment of the state by the people concerned: the citizens. Despite the acknowledgment of the people, the legitimacy should not be circumscribed to this sole criterion. Just as the preponderant majority of religions around the globe have a sort of Scripture, states do have constitutions for the constitution is the backbone of a state; by and with which a state survives the wrath of its most crucial element: the citizens. Constitution is, by definition, what constitutes a state; it is the written manual of this quasi-living organism on whose back the remainder of its components relies. Consequently, legitimacy must reside, on a national scale, in the state's adherence to its constitution. While the deviation of the state's functions from the constitution might be called a political faux pas, a voluntary infringement of its own constitution is designated as tyranny or dictatorship, something that totally takes away the legitimacy of the government at hand.

 Another situation where the legitimacy of a government is nullified, but this time on an international scale, is where the government willfully contravenes, even in the slightest of fashions, the internationally signed conventions that strive to prevent or, at least, minimise the transgression of universal human rights, such as the Geneva Convention or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Besides, all inhumane treatments and applications of a government tarnish its legitimacy to various degrees; nevertheless, the government should not be overthrown and revolutionised, but either politically or militarily reformed in a peaceful way unless this malicious penchant evolves into a persisting tyrannical reign.

 As for what to do under the circumstances, that annul the legitimacy of a government to rule the state, such the implementation and use of concentration camps or the attempt to change 'unchangeable' articles of the constitution, there are several steps to proceed. First of all, if the illegitimacy emanates from inside the state, meaning on a national level, the army must take over the government and declare the rule of a provisional military junta before the establishment of a new government, fully consistent with the constitution and its legal executive. To this end, the army must be unconditionally kept at bay from politics. In case the military is so plagued by politician parasites that it cannot proceed to said coup d'état, the citizens have the right of armed resistance against the illegitimate government and all the personnel thereof: ministers, senators, deputies, etc. 

Besides, if the illegitimacy emanates from outside the state, that's to say, on a national and diplomatic scale, and, furthermore, neither the people nor the army has the intention of curbing the wrong-doing, then the international arena must notify and send a written warning to the country in order that it correct itself; if not, other countries, the concerned countries first if there is any, have the right to militarily intervene after the expedition of a last ultimatum.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Batuhan "Athel" AZELOĞLU