Illegitimate Regimes
I went to The Woodpile Report and found this post by Ol Remus. He done some good research on this.
A legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Notice, legitimate is different from legal. A regime can be legal yet not legitimate. The Soviet Union's rule over eastern Europe was legal but not legitimate. A legal but illegitimate regime rules, a legitimate regime governs. Legitimate regimes are a franchise granted by the people and accountable to the people. Where instead the people are held accountable to the regime, where the regime grants franchises to the people, there we find illegitimacy. Said differently, a legal but illegitimate regime is a player disguised as a referee. In Woodpile Report issue 249 Remus said,
When a government loses legitimacy, or the appearance of legitimacy, with or without the substance, it's a terminal condition. Anything they say or do speeds them to the wall.
Illegitimate acts are like a fart in an elevator, it's not illegal, it's an offense of a different order, one which can't be denied, defended or undone, and there's nothing the offender can do to stop proof of his malfeasance from spreading. We sniff something offensive when a regime won't or can't balance its budget, defend its borders or declare and win its wars. Remus went on to say a regime has lost more than the appearance of legitimacy when it behaves as an occupying power,
No comments:
Post a Comment