What if ancient Greece hadn't invented the early version of democracy?

[Flying Pig]

Essentially, if you asked whoever runs the country what gave them the right to force people to do things against their will (ie, to make and have enforced the law), they would have a valid claim to power if their response made you say 'OK, fair enough'. Since we generally view government as a social contract nowadays - that is, the state has the right to power over people because those people, by enjoying its protection and the benefits of living there, implicitly accept that as part of the deal - the only truly valid claim to power is the consent of the governed.

This can be active consent ('80% of them voted for me as President') or tacit consent ('nobody ever protests against the monarchy, so they must support it') - most would say that the latter needs some element of the former as well. The current situation in this country is a bit complicated, but in 1997 we could say that the Labour Party had the active consent of the people because a majority of them voted for his MPs, and Blair had their tacit consent because everybody knew that the leader of the largest party would be appointed PM, and nobody complained about that.

 

[LightSpectra]

Essentially, if you asked whoever runs the country what gave them the right to force people to do things against their will (ie, to make and have enforced the law), they would have a valid claim to power if their response made you say 'OK, fair enough'. Since we generally view government as a social contract nowadays - that is, the state has the right to power over people because those people, by enjoying its protection and the benefits of living there, implicitly accept that as part of the deal - the only truly valid claim to power is the consent of the governed.

So what you mean by "valid claim" is nothing beyond the standard monopoly on force in civil areas. Essentially then governments-in-exile are fantasies with no relevance to their home country's political state.

 

[Masada]

No government type is inherently legitimate.

The Union was :3

 

[Traitorfish]

So what you mean by "valid claim" is nothing beyond the standard monopoly on force in civil areas. Essentially then governments-in-exile are fantasies with no relevance to their home country's political state.

Certainly seems that way.

 

[Ondskan]

Let me guess, they stole it from Sweden?

Yeah. Although we probably stole it from Africa.

Seriously though Landsting existed in Sweden but I guess after the date in Greece. Though they are both unrelated.
In celtic societies democracy was at least as developed as in Greece. Indeed it was inclusive and without as much prejudice.

This is nothing compared to the democracies of East African cultures though that had a form of direct democracy before Greeks had founded Athens. These are the culture of the African horn. Google on it and if you can't find anything on them I'll be glad to assist you. It is a most interesting topic.

Crete also experimented with democracy, although under the rule of a monarch for most of the time. It also had a most egalitarian society, homes were without doors, food was shared. One could call it the first modern communist state (I.E. not tribal/native communism), as imperfect as the newer ones - if not less.

 

[Flying Pig]

So what you mean by "valid claim" is nothing beyond the standard monopoly on force in civil areas. Essentially then governments-in-exile are fantasies with no relevance to their home country's political state.

Legitimacy can be claimed through force - 'My word is law because nobody dares break it' - but international bodies tend to dislike recognising a government purely because it has force at its disposal, and if it's competing with one that also seems to have a popular mandate as well as having coercive power, they'll tend to recognise the competitor. We saw that in Libya, and Syria's going that way - nobody recognises the legitimacy of Assad's government any more, but the opposition lacks the political structure to be recognised as a government: once it gains a bit of ground and organises itself, I'd be surprised if it doesn't get recognised as the legitimate government of Syria.

Certainly seems that way.

Governments-in-exile are tricky; they have legitimacy but don't often have any power, while occupying forces in such a country often have power but no legitimacy. However, they can still provide leadership to those willing to follow them (to have power, you have to be able to get people to do what you want even against their own wishes) and a convenient structure to slot in once the country is liberated.

 

[LightSpectra]

Legitimacy can be claimed through force - 'My word is law because nobody dares break it' - but international bodies tend to dislike recognising a government purely because it has force at its disposal, and if it's competing with one that also seems to have a popular mandate as well as having coercive power, they'll tend to recognise the competitor. We saw that in Libya, and Syria's going that way - nobody recognises the legitimacy of Assad's government any more, but the opposition lacks the political structure to be recognised as a government: once it gains a bit of ground and organises itself, I'd be surprised if it doesn't get recognised as the legitimate government of Syria.

What does it matter if other states or international organizations 'recognize' the legitimacy of a certain government? It's practically important in this day and age because trading status and military intervention are extremely important affairs for a government to keep track of, but theoretically speaking I don't think it should matter. The Nazi Party acquired the chancellorship in Weimar Germany by legal means -- parliamentarian consent -- but they expanded their influence to a totalitarian grasp on their country by both illegal ways (assassination, terrorism) and dubiously legal ways (modifying the constitution). Few questioned their legitimacy in or out of the country until a resistance movement popped up in World War II.

Governments-in-exile are tricky; they have legitimacy but don't often have any power, while occupying forces in such a country often have power but no legitimacy. However, they can still provide leadership to those willing to follow them (to have power, you have to be able to get people to do what you want even against their own wishes) and a convenient structure to slot in once the country is liberated.

But what gave them legitimacy to begin with? Being elected? National elections are only valid under the contemporary constitution, and it's a decision made by those actually in power whether to respect or disregard it. A populace can consent to a constitution by plebicite, and then do so again if an extralegal entity does away with it.

 

[Flying Pig]

National elections are only valid under the contemporary constitution, and it's a decision made by those actually in power whether to respect or disregard it. A populace can consent to a constitution by plebicite, and then do so again if an extralegal entity does away with it.

National elections give an indication of whom the people want to be governed by, so assuming that they're free and fair, they're valid no matter the constitution - those in power can theoretically disregard them, but then they'd probably lose international recognition and perhaps face sanctions. I disagree with you that recognition shouldn't be relevant; it helps to ensure that those governments who are in power are vaguely legitimate and use that power as they should. It's not perfect, but it's better than not having it.

 

[LightSpectra]

National elections give an indication of whom the people want to be governed by, so assuming that they're free and fair, they're valid no matter the constitution - those in power can theoretically disregard them, but then they'd probably lose international recognition and perhaps face sanctions.

What's the point of a written constitution if it's implicitly dissolved with every national election?

I disagree with you that recognition shouldn't be relevant; it helps to ensure that those governments who are in power are vaguely legitimate and use that power as they should. It's not perfect, but it's better than not having it.

That's tautological. Popular recognition is an important element to state legitimacy because it ensures that those who are in power are vaguely legitimate?

 

[Flying Pig]

What's the point of a written constitution if it's implicitly dissolved with every national election?

We don't have a written constitution, and I don't see that we ought to.

That's tautological. Popular recognition is an important element to state legitimacy because it ensures that those who are in power are vaguely legitimate?

We're talking about international recognition. The only way in which a government can truly have legitimacy, in modern politics (now that deus vult is gone), is to have the consent of the people. However, it's not impossible for a government to take power without that, or to hold onto it after their popular mandate has evaporated. Since international recognition tends to penalise such action, its use means that there are fewer illegitimate governments in place than there would be without it. Sound fair?

 

[LightSpectra]

We don't have a written constitution, and I don't see that we ought to.

The U.K. is exceptional in Western republics in not having a written constitution. That aside, it's not exactly much different from the United States in practice, since presidents like FDR got around that by appointing justices to the Supreme Court that he knew would, to his favor, make rulings based on incorrect interpretations of the Constitution. Such is the fallacy of viewing it as a "living document."

But your response is valid, so allow me to modify the question: how can a regime have legitimacy if it dictates to itself what is legal for it to do?

We're talking about international recognition. The only way in which a government can truly have legitimacy, in modern politics (now that deus vult is gone), is to have the consent of the people. However, it's not impossible for a government to take power without that, or to hold onto it after their popular mandate has evaporated. Since international recognition tends to penalise such action, its use means that there are fewer illegitimate governments in place than there would be without it. Sound fair?

"By the grace of God" has never been a real source of political legitimacy, except for very rare theorists like Sir Robert Filmer. In practice it's very similar to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven, where prosperity is viewed as a divine favoring whereas petulant times is a sign that the citizens shouldn't tolerate their monarch in its present state.

Because of that, it's precisely as arbitrary and prone for misuse as democratic consent is. And since international recognition is nothing but a collection of several democratic consents, as it is too. I mean, practically speaking, sometimes it's okay, but that's nothing but a tendency, as you said. So using that as a source of state legitimacy is nebulous, difficult and ultimately doesn't really explain what legitimacy is, who has it, and why it's important.

 

[Flying Pig]

But your response is valid, so allow me to modify the question: how can a regime have legitimacy if it dictates to itself what is legal for it to do?

As long as it doesn't dictate that it can do anything which the people strongly oppose and then remove its accountability to the people, it's fine. As long as we can hold them to account by voting them out of office at the next election, the system itself is legitimate - there's also a strong argument that if a democratic government knows that it has lost the support of the people and yet refuses to resign, it has lost its legitimacy. If it dictated to itself that it could rule despite what the people thought, it would lose its legitimacy - the fact that it theoretically could do that isn't enough.

"By the grace of God" has never been a real source of political legitimacy, except for very rare theorists like Sir Robert Filmer, because in practice it's very similar to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven, where prosperity is viewed as a divine favoring whereas petulant times is a sign that the citizens shouldn't tolerate their monarch.

It was pretty much the universal source of legitimacy before the English Civil War, aside from force. Absolute monarchs never really claimed to be working for their people; they were in charge because that was how things worked, because God had ordained them to be in charge.

Because of that, it's precisely as arbitrary and prone for misuse as democratic consent is.

And yet - I'll say this again - democratic consent remains the only valid claim to legitimacy.

And since international recognition is nothing but a collection of several democratic consents, as it is too. I mean, practically speaking, sometimes it's okay, but that's nothing but a tendency, as you said.

"It's not perfect" does not imply "we should totally disregard it". It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

So using that as a source of state legitimacy is nebulous, difficult and ultimately doesn't really explain what legitimacy is, who has it, and why it's important.

Which is why it's not a source - if a government has actual power on the ground and is accepted by its people, it's legitimate; if not, it's not - but rather a check on whether a government is legitimate. It doesn't prove that it is, but the two normally go hand in hand.

 

[Traitorfish]

The U.K. is exceptional in Western republics in not having a written constitution. That aside, it's not exactly much different from the United States in practice, since presidents like FDR got around that by appointing justices to the Supreme Court that he knew would, to his favor, make rulings based on incorrect interpretations of the Constitution. Such is the fallacy of viewing it as a "living document."

Yes, but all bourgeois constitutions are essentially just an ideological costume for class-domination, and can be discarded in favour of the outright dictatorship of capital when working class resistance proves impossible to contain through conventional means, so what does it matter?

Y'know, just while we're cramming our personal politics into it.

 

[Gatsby]

How would've that affected the rest of the world? Would all countries be monarchies/dictatorships or would there be another brand new political system similar to democracy?

Presumably we would've ended up with a world where some governments were overtly oppressive, while others sugar-coated it with things like material goodies and venerable old manuscripts full of flowery pretences about the peoples' freedoms and rights....

 

[Lord Baal]

Presumably we would've ended up with a world where some governments were overtly oppressive, while others sugar-coated it with things like material goodies and venerable old manuscripts full of flowery pretences about the peoples' freedoms and rights....

I see what you did there.

 

[TedSkymer]

various near eastern city states developed a form of government that was remarkably similar to athens over 1000 years before kleisthenes "invented" the idea. pretty sure someone else would have if athens hadn't.

 

[Lord Baal]

various near eastern city states developed a form of government that was remarkably similar to athens over 1000 years before kleisthenes "invented" the idea. pretty sure someone else would have if athens hadn't.

Variations of democracy were invented on every human-inhabited continent - with the possible exception of Australia. So yes, it would have cropped up elsewhere. Even the Roman Republic was developed independently of Athenian democracy.

 

[TedSkymer]

Variations of democracy were invented on every human-inhabited continent - with the possible exception of Australia. So yes, it would have cropped up elsewhere. Even the Roman Republic was developed independently of Athenian democracy.

the interesting thing about ancient near eastern democracy is how closely it resembled athenian democracy with executive officers and judges selected by lot and the power to ostracize individuals.

 

[Dachs]

Exclusion of members from a group is one of the most basic damage control options available to any community. You can see that sort of thing happening on the internet all the time, but nobody would say that, for instance, furverts are an interesting comparison to Athenian or ANE or North Indian democracy.

 

[Domen]

Wasn't there something similar also developing in Ancient India?