The effect of state institutions on the legitimacy and stability of the state

State institutions affect every aspect of today’s society. The way we learn and interact is a result of our education in an institutional system which is set up by the state. This system is the biggest problem and the best solution yet between the harmony of society and state. It is in the interest of the system itself that it is most stable and legitimate. Just a stable and legitimate system which coordinates the interaction between society and state can lead to a fostered and enduring humanity. To find this system is the very goal of society. However, this conclusion will not lead as to the answer how this state system should look like.

To understand this concept, this work will argue that the concepts of legitimacy and stability are connected and that they are in correlation with state institutions. In order to do this, this paper is structured into three parts.

Firstly, this essay will examine different definitions of legitimacy. This work will argue that the concept of legitimacy is disputed and a matter of definition but no definition should be without a moral factor.

Secondly, this paper will look how legitimacy is created. The outcome of this discussion will be that legitimacy is a concept that is based on core values, personal experiences and that is interdependent with the state and its institutions.

Finally, this work looks at the stability of the state. It will be concluded that the stability of the state depends on its use of force, on its economic system and the rule of law.

Unfortunately is it impossible due to space restrictions to demonstrate all the relationships between all the state institutions and the concepts of stability and legitimacy.

The problem with definitions

To define legitimacy is a difficult task. In order to understand what is meant by legitimacy one needs to look at different definitions of legitimacy and their differences in detail. Useem defines state legitimacy as the following: “State legitimacy, the widespread public belief that the society’s governing institutions and political authorities are worthy of support, is commonly held to be a precondition for political stability in advanced capitalist democracies” (Useem and Useem 1979: 840).  They also include that political trust by the society into the officials of the state is a needed element to legitimate a state (Useem and Useem 1979: 841). The definition of Beetham on the other hand is much shorter and does not have such an emphasis on morals as the following excerpt shows: “Where power is acquired and exercised according to justifiable rules and with evidence of consent, we call it rightful or legitimate” (Beetham 1991: 3). Another way to approach this problem is to define what illegitimate means and therefore reason what legitimate means. Rotberg for example argues that an illegitimate state is a state with broken and corrupt state institutions (Jervis 2005: 482). This approach does not seem to be reasonable, because in reverse, this definition would imply that a state is legitimate only when its institutions are not corrupt or broken. This definition lacks a moral element. Weber argues that legitimacy arises out of the confidence of the ruled (Weber 1972: 267). This definition also lacks a sufficient moral element (Grafstein 1981: 457). Further, a moral dimension seems to be needed to define democracy. Useem’s and Beetham’s definitions take into account a moral factor which, as this paper will argue, is one of the core concepts which are interlinked with justice, stability and legitimacy itself. An indicator for this moral factor is the implication of political equality within the state apparatus. The implication of political equality into the electoral system, for example,  can be seen as a moral element that gives the state legitimacy through the implementation of this moral value into a state institution (McGann 2006: 35-59).  These arguments illustrate a problem, which is that the understanding of moral values is not universal und is not the same for every human on the planet, as argued by Betham (Beetham 1991: 73).  In contrast he argues that human beings are rational moral agents who try to satisfy their relations in a moral sense and by doing so provide the underlying structure of legitimacy (Beetham 1991: 22).  Hence legitimacy has an underlying moral base which is needed to be covered by the state institutions in order to gain legitimacy, but this element is different from human to human because the perception of what is just is not universal. Therefore, we can argue that legitimacy is a perception or assumption which is created subjectively (Suchman 1995: 574).  For these reasons the concept of legitimacy is subjective and impossible to define because of a set of moral factors which are debatable.

The development of legitimacy

The rise of legitimacy is a process which his hard to grasp. To illustrate the different sources of legitimacy we will use Muller’s argument. Muller argues that there are ideological, structural and personal sources of legitimacy which have independent effects but do affect the legitimisation of state institutions (Muller 1970: 408-409).

The ideological source of legitimacy arises out of the concept of core values. As discussed before, core values or basic morals are not universal. That means they are not similar in every society but they exist in every society.  Lehman argues that legitimacy and core values in culture, using the case of the USA as an example, are interconnected (Lehman 1992: 140). It is arguable how big this connection is, but it undoubtedly exists. An example is that the burning of the American flag is a violation of the core values or moral values of the American society. Therefore a government which seeks to be legitimate is forced to punish the burning of the flag.

The personal source of legitimacy starts to develop through education. The education is on the one hand a task of the parents, who are responsible for the passing on of the ideological and personal concept of legitimacy. On the other hand, education is a task of the state, which provides the concept of personal legitimacy. Muller explains that the children get educated in the way which favors their own political system even though they can neither vote nor participate in the system; hence the state legitimizes itself through the educational system (Muller 1970: 394). A good example of that is that the children in the USA do not get educated about the involvement of their government in covert operations around the world even when these events are known to scholars. Another example is the education of Japanese children about what their country did in World War II. They are aware of strategic developments and the dates of the battles but they do not know of atrocities committed by Japanese forces. Examples like that can be found everywhere. Therefore, the integrity and the legitimacy of a state is sometimes more secure through the misinformation of the people.

The last source of legitimacy is the structural underpinning. This is especially a feature of liberal democratic states. The argument goes that certain policies are developed by a state to legitimize the social order and the state itself (Birch 1993: 66). It is arguable that the state just enacts the policies because they are wanted by the population. Birch argues differently: He declares that the liberal democratic state has developed a system which legitimizes most of their actions (Birch 1993: 64). This system provided a welfare state and the concept of the protection of minorities and disadvantaged groups. It can be disputed whether this system is set up by the government, or by the governed. It remains factual that political legitimacy is useful for the authorities (Lehman 1992: 141).

This concept has two flaws. Firstly, the most common indicator of legitimacy is the voting behaviour (Lehman 1992: 144). This indicator is widely disputed in a democracy because the system in which one votes and possible outcomes of elections are always arguable. This is especially the case when the turnout of the vote is fewer than 100% and the winner is backed by less than the majority of the population. Secondly, rational legal doctrines and democratic rules are set up to legitimize the state policy (Lehman 1992: 142). The problem with this explanation is that the rules are created to legitimize the state power. Beetham argues that the power exercised stands in need for justification and therefore legitimisation, not just the rules which grant the use of power (Beetham 1991: 17).  These are the two main problems of the structural source of legitimacy. The state institutions are created in order to legitimize the state in the eyes of the governed. But the extent of how they are legitimized, meaning which measurement is used to call them legitimate and the force the state institutions bear, can be disputed.

The state and legitimacy are in a relationship which can be destructive to both of them. It is a fine balance. If any of these sources of legitimacy is threatened, than the state is threatened. The stability is not given anymore. It is up to the will of the people to force governmental inclusion of values, norms and structures of legitimacy in their governance (Muller 1970: 393). They have to secure that they are governing in a way that favors the people which can lead to the self-destruction of the state as argued in the next chapter. If the people do not see themselves in the center of their state, than they conclude that the interests of the governed are in the main interest of the state which would result in a destabilization of the state itself.

Legitimacy and stability

Assuming that an existing state has the legitimacy of the people does not automatically mean that the state will be legitimate after a regime change or a drastic change of policy. Beetham argues that the biggest changes in the relationship between society and legitimacy are a shift in the political or social order (Beetham 1991:  75). This is not just a threat to the legitimacy of the state; it is also a threat to the stability of the state. The state does not need the legitimacy to function or even to survive but it needs legitimacy when the state is faced with a serious political failure or challenge to it (Beetham 1991: 118). This means that the states stability is not just threatened when the state itself commits a mistake and the people react to it, but it means as well that the state can make such a mistake and still exist, as long as it is legitimized in the eyes of its people.

McGann argues that state legitimacy is spread into three parts: the first one is Cabinet stability which determines how long a government lasts, the second is regime stability which determines if the state has a coherent policy and thirdly, institutional stability which determines if the institutions can sustain themselves (McGann 2006: 188-194). All these factors seem to be quite plausible if the state always has the legitimacy and prosperity of its people at heart. This work will additionally argue that other factors play an important role. These factors are the economic system, the rule of law, and the use of force.

These factors are discussed using the example of a modern liberal capitalist state.

It can be argued that the capitalist system is competing against the state itself over the favour of the people. What is meant by that is that people sometimes have to choose between economic benefits and the stability of the state. Writers like Offe claim that in the late stages of capitalism the state legitimization breaks down under that demands of the capitalist system (Birch 1993: 64). The democratically elected government is always trying to get the highest rate of legitimacy possible. This is done by the demands for student loans, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, and social housing and health services. The government of the day tries to increase state spending in order to make the people happy, therefore trying efficiently to get re-elected. But that means that the government just keeps spending more and more money which would in the future result in a huge state deficit. As Birch argues, there are only three possibilities for the state to get out of this dilemma: Firstly, to restrain the spending, secondly, to compensate the growing debt by taxation and finally by ignoring the problem and letting the debt grow (Birch 1993: 65). All these options would result in the long run in a loss of legitimacy and state stability. The opposition party always can argue that they will increases spending, reduce taxation or tackle the debt in order to gain legitimacy and therefore votes. This dilemma shows that because of the economical system, the government of the day will always have a lack of legitimating reason for that being the people who more benefits and the government which is aware of the risks. That means that the stability will always suffer in a democratic capitalist state because it seems to be impossible to balance the wishes of the people with the state’s financial issues. On the other hand is the financial system in the eyes of Birch already legitimized (Birch 1993: 64). This however does not mean that just because the capitalist system is legitimized the people are aware of the risks of their own wishes. Neo-Marxists agree to this fact and argued that the state will always lose because it gives primacy to capital accumulation over legitimacy (Lehman 1992: 144).

The legitimacy of the state as already mentioned is closely entangled with the stability of the state. Therefore is it just logical that the rule of law has to be seen under this point of view as well. Hoffman agrees: “Legitimacy has to be linked to legality – whether conduct occurs according to rules" (Hoffman 1995: 78). Beetham disagrees: He argues that one of the prime causes for the disorder in societies is the disagreement about the aspect of power rules (Beetham 1991: 139). This difference results out of the disagreements about the different ideological sources of legitimacy. A good example of that would be the different aspects of understanding between morally right and wrong in the cultural conflict between the German part and the Turkish part of the German population. Both are part of the German society, but the interpretation of what is just and what is unjust are quite different. Another example is the Mohammed caricatures: The one side sees it as an example of the freedom of speech, while others see it as an insult, punishable by the state. People are different; therefore the interpretation of law is difficult, because the law in a liberal society intends to treat everybody on equal terms. This political authority which the law has is therefore always open for question (Birch 1993: 57). The only restriction of this conflict is the concept of equality: This equality is a feature of democracy itself and therefore indisputable (McGann 2006: 35). This is one of the view concepts every party in a democracy agrees on and therefore an important base the stability of the state relies on.

Many political scientists like Beetham argue that the physical protection of the citizens is the most basic task of the state (Beetham1991: 138). If, however, the security apparatus grows too large, the state will destabilize. “Force is necessary to the success of the state but signals the failure of the government” (Hoffman 1995: 79). This would indicate that if there is too much force applied by the government, the stability of the state is not guaranteed anymore because the state uses force to secure this stability. If pushed too far the government would lose the legitimacy of the use of force and a coup d’état or a civil war would put an end to the government (Beetham 1991: 55).  The threat of force on the other hand is necessary and legitimate because it assures that the people follow the rules (Hoffman: 1995: 90). Therefore the use of force is necessary but always a sign that the relationship between society and state is not harmonic hence that the stability of the state is in danger.

The stability of the state is in a close relation with the legitimacy of the state, but is also determined by a lot of other factors. However, the indicators of state failure or the loss of stability are the failure of the economic and the political sphere as well as the use of force (Art and Jervis 2005: 486-487).

Conclusion

As this work shows, the concept of legitimacy is widely disputed. As strongly disputed as this concept is the notion that the implementations of core moral values of the society in the state apparatus are vital for an enduring relationship between society and the state. These moral values are not uniform in a society, and therefore a commonly accepted definition of legitimacy is unlikely.

This paper argued that the rise of legitimacy is dependent on three factors: Firstly, the concept of legitimacy does arise out of the core values which are based on a cultural ideology. This ideology is different all around the world and a reason why a common concept of legitimacy is unlikely.  Therefore are state institutions never fully legitimized because the ideological hence moral values of all people in a society can never be unified in institutions? Reason for that being, that they might clash in the assumption what is morally right and what morally wrong. Secondly, the concept of legitimacy arises out of the education of the people. A state will always make sure that the people in the educational systems acquire the values which legitimize the state itself. This would mean that every government will alter the educational system in order to ensure that their actions will be seen as legitimate which might clash with former or future governments. Thirdly, legitimacy arises out of the structure of the state. The state has set up a system which legitimizes the state itself. Examples for that is the welfare state or social housing. The problem with this analysis is that there is not a clear measurement of state legitimacy and that the power a state bears may be disputed by parts of the society itself.

In conclusion, it could therefore be argued that legitimacy and stability are interdependent.

There are several forms of stability like regime, institutional and cabinet stability. All these are important forms of stability and relate to different institutions of a state. There is a special emphasis on the economical situation, the rule of law and the use of force which are very important regarding the stability and legitimacy of the state. When one of these institutions falls apart or gets drawn too much in the direction of the state or the people legitimacy and stability deter and the state will fall apart.

All these factors are important in order to have a state which is legitimate and stable at the same time, and keeping them balanced between the wishes of the people and the wishes of the government is a task every leader tries to manage.

Bibliography

Beetham, David (1991) The legitimation of power (US: Humanities Press International).

Birch, Anthony H. (1993) The concepts and theories of modern democracy (UK: Routledge).

Hoffman, John (1995) Beyond the state: An Introductionary Critique (UK: Polity Press).

Lehman, Edward W (1992) The viable polity (USA: Temple University Press).

McGann (2006) The logic of democracy: reconciling equality, deliberation, and minority protection       (USA: University of Michigan Press).

Muller, Edward N. (1970) Correlates and Consequences of Beliefs in the legitimacy of regime                 structures in Midwest Journal of Political Science 14: 392-412.

Rotberg, Robert I. (2005) failed states, collapsed states, weak states, causes and indicators in Art         Robert J. and Jervis Robert (eds) International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary          issues (USA: Pearson/Longman).

Suchman, Mark (1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional approaches in The Academy   of Management Review 20: 571-610.

Useem, Bert and Useem Michael (1979) Government, Legitimacy and Political Stability in Social             Forces 57: 840-852.

Weber Max (1972) Economy and Society (UK: Routledge).