IGNOU MPS 001 Political Theory — Unit 12: Legitimation and Obligation (Complete Notes)

12.1 Introduction

Legitimation and obligation are intimately related concepts — legitimation induces obligation, while obligation strengthens the claims of legitimation. Both have captured the attention of philosophers since ancient Greece.

Legitimation: pronouncing what is lawful — what accords with established rules, principles, or standards; what has the sanction of force behind it and is followed by punishment if violated.
Obligation: that by which a person is bound to do certain things — arising out of a sense of duty; a state of being legally indebted.

The relationship: legitimation seeks to demand or pursue something; obligation seeks to accept or follow. Legitimation is a matter of seeking obedience; obligation is a matter of accepting dominance.

12.2 What is Legitimation?

Legitimation = legalisation — what is legal is legitimate; what is not in accordance with law, established rules, or recognised norms is not legitimate. Literally: “to make lawful.”

However, legitimation goes beyond mere legalistic connotation — it includes a host of processes by which an action is deemed “legitimate.” These processes are fundamental not only to power relations in society but to its economic, social, and belief systems.

State power is legitimate not merely because the state is lawfully entitled to exercise it, but also because its power is recognised by those on whom it is exercised. Legitimation includes:

The legalised patterns of state activities.
The value-systems of society in which the state exercises control.
The citizens’ recognition that the state’s power is legitimately based.

12.2.1 Legitimation and the State

The state’s strength is based on legitimation. All forms of state power require legitimation. Without legitimation, the only alternative is the use of physical force or terror. In a democratically structured society, state power is legitimate when:

(a) The power to rule is given by the people and exercised with the consent of the majority, with those exercising power elected for a limited period and subject to a system of control.
(b) State power is exercised corresponding to the principles of the constitution, especially those relating to legality.

The state’s power is the necessary corollary of the duty it is supposed to perform — power is the essential product of the job the state is called upon to do.

Legitimation demands:

A set of norms, principles, rules, and regulations on the basis of which the state exercises its power.
That the exercise of state power follows certain fundamental procedures — “walking on a well-established path already laid down.”
Compliance from the people. When the people accept the power of the state, there is no crisis of legitimation. A crisis of legitimation occurs when the power of the state is challenged by the people or a part thereof.

12.2.2 Legitimation and Legitimacy

Legitimation and legitimacy are closely related but distinct:

Legitimation	Legitimacy
The process — “making lawful”; the attending feature of the state	The outcome — the people’s willingness to accept the state’s claim to rule; the soul of the state
Secondary	Primary
Related to the exercise of state power and how it ought to be used	What the state is primarily associated with

Both admit the element of people’s willingness to accept the legal authority of the state. Neither admits arbitrariness in any form. A government may act arbitrarily in the legal sense but not in the sociological sense.

Legitimacy requires that most people accept the state’s title to rule — not a small number. A military regime may be obeyed out of compulsion, but this does not make it legitimate. Legitimacy appears only when people accept the state’s authority without being forced.

Key relationship: It is legitimacy (or self-legitimation) that converts power into authority. Power without legitimation becomes mere arbitrariness or brute force. Example: the Apartheid regime in South Africa — a white minority enjoyed all political rights but ruled over the black majority. That government had no legitimate authority in the eyes of the vast majority — the Blacks.

12.2.3 Power, Legitimation and Authority

Power → (through legitimation) → Authority

Authority devoid of legitimation = brute force.
Legitimation makes power a lawful authority — authorises the government to exercise power so as to rule the people.
Without legitimation, no authority can lawfully exercise power.

Two-way movement of legitimation:

Authorises the government/state to rule in accordance with the authority vested in it and through established procedures.
Creates a willing body of citizens who accept the government’s authority to rule.

Delegitimation robs the state of any claim over the people and induces no respect from them.

Legitimation is the meeting point between the state and the people, between the rulers and the ruled. Without it, no effective social order can be created — disorder alone prevails where power is exercised without legitimation of authority.

12.3 What is Obligation?

Obligation = the act of binding oneself to some duty, contract, or promise. It arises out of a sense of duty. Analytical connection: to be obliged = to have a duty.

Obligation is a relational concept — used in two senses:

(a) A relation between individual persons — one is under an obligation to another.
(b) A relation between a person and an institution (e.g., the government) — to owe obedience; the state has corresponding rights over the individual.

To be “bound” is not to be in bonds — it means acceptance of a submission, working within limitations, with a certain amount of freedom lost until the obligation has been discharged.

Key implications of obligation:

An act of binding oneself to some duty.
A situation characteristic of a relational relationship.
An authority (e.g., the government) with assured rights over individuals, and individuals agreeing to obey the laws of such an authority.

12.3.1 Types of Obligations: Moral and Legal

Obligations can be:

Conscious (e.g., not being in debt) or unconscious (e.g., liability for military service of which one is unaware).
All legal and political obligations are obligations of which we are aware.
Moral obligation: a man cannot be said to have a moral obligation of which he is not aware. Examples: promises we make (conscious) vs. the obligation of caring for aged parents (may not occur to some as an obligation).

Duty vs. Obligation:

Duty comes close to moral obligation.
Obligation comes close to legal/political obligation.
However, the two are not opposites — “there is a measure of duty in obligation, and a measure of obligation in duty.”
An obligation is an obligation first — whether it is legal, political, or moral is secondary.

Thomas McPherson (Political Obligation, 1967): “We should generally be reluctant to use the expression ‘moral obligation’ for a duty not voluntarily assumed. Some cases covered by the expression ‘political obligation’ are certainly cases where we have obligations that we have not voluntarily assumed.”

12.3.2 Duty, Obligation and Conflict

Duty and obligation have much in common — there is a clear analytical relationship between the two. However, different obligations can come into conflict:

A moral obligation may conflict with a legal obligation.
A political obligation may conflict with a religious one.
Example: the moral obligation to help a friend in distress may conflict with the legal obligation to pay taxes on time.
Compulsory vaccination may be a political obligation while a religious obligation may demand almost the opposite.

The more important question: when obligations conflict, which one takes priority? Political obligation may be more immediately demanding at a given point of time — it may seek immediate redressal for fear of punishment. The resolution involves “serious struggles of conscience.”

12.3.3 Concept of Political Obligation

Political obligation constitutes an exterior sphere of norms and rules — found in laws and by-laws. It is a body of duties which citizens can be legally compelled to perform under threat of punishment.

Political obligation goes beyond legal obligation:

It demands compliance to state laws.
But it also admits means to challenge the system — to safeguard obligation ends.
It includes the duty to defend the country and to fight for justice — wider than either moral or legal obligation.

Legal obligation only protects the already established legal structure. Political obligation protects the system as a whole against political disagreement, despotism, totalitarianism, injustice, and exploitation. The problem of political obligation is how to establish a legitimised political/social order.

Political obligation is situated in a sphere between ethics and law — related to its grounds (“why to obey?”) and its content (“what does it contain so that it is obeyed?”).

12.4 Why Obey the Government? An Overview

Obedience to government is not merely a legal phenomenon — it is also political. People obey more because they believe it is good to do so and because they are convinced the government is legitimate. No one willingly obeys a government they regard as illegitimate. If obedience is voluntary, so is the unwillingness to obey.

Legitimacy is not permanent — it is a continuous process. States endure not merely because they have power (overwhelming power does not last on its own) but because they have the acceptance and support of the people.

12.4.1 Legitimation and Obligation: Basis of Paternalism

Three forms of paternalism:

Divine Right Theory: Power is given by God — kings rule because God authorises them. The basis of the king’s authority is religion; the state is a divine institution. Disobedience = both a crime and a sin. Absolute obedience is its characteristic feature; political resistance = rebellion against the divine ruler.

Charismatic Authority (Weber): Personal authority based on the dominant personality of the leader — those who have power may be thought to have a right to it. “Men with magnetic personalities,” “born leaders.” In times of crisis, people want to be led and respond to those who put themselves forward as leaders (Wesley, Hitler, Churchill). People willingly confer authority due to extraordinary personal qualities. A form of paternalism that can lead to authoritarianism.

Traditionalism: People accept the power of some over themselves because these rulers have been followed from time immemorial. Obedience becomes a matter of practice; acceptance of such authority is a matter of traditionally-based belief.

12.4.2 Legitimation and Obligation: Basis of Contract

The contract theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) provides a legal or quasi-legal basis of legitimation and obligation — we ought to obey the government because we have entered into a contract to do so.

Hobbes: legitimation through the Leviathan — an agreement by which the state protects the people.
Locke: the state protects the rights of the people as per the contract; the state rules in accordance with procedure established by law and the constitution.
Rousseau: government based on the General Will.

The contract theory:

Legalises the state and gives it legitimacy to govern as a matter of title.
Legalises the procedure of people’s obligation to obey the state — people are legally bound to comply.
Establishes the legal relationship between rulers and ruled — binding the former to rule, binding the latter to obey.
Leaves no scope for non-compliance; non-compliance is followed by punishment.

12.4.3 Legitimation and Obligation: Basis of Consent

Close semblance between contract and consent theories — both are related yet distinct in emphasis.

Locke: “Men being by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” Also: “The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.” Nothing should be demanded of an individual that does not accord with his uncoerced and conscious will.

Rousseau’s General Will as consent: Glenn Tinder (Political Thinking, 1986): “A government deserves obedience if its commands conform to what Rousseau called the general will… a government has a legitimate claim to obedience only when its commands represent the true, ultimate interests of all the people.”

Consent at the base of state formation makes the government legally empowered to make laws and compels people to obey — on the grounds of their explicit consent. The democratic content itself gives legitimation to the government and demands people’s obligation to obey: the government rules because the people want it to rule; the people obey because the government rules for them.

12.5 Legitimation and Obligation Crises

No system is free from crisis. Jürgen Habermas (Legitimation Crisis, 1976): crises arise not because of accidental changes in the environment, but because of “structurally inherent system imperatives that are incompatible and cannot be hierarchically integrated.”

Habermas identifies four levels of crises in advanced capitalist societies:

Economic crisis — failure to produce the requisite quantity of consumable values.
Rationality crisis — the administrative system fails to produce the requisite quantity of rational decisions.
Legitimation crisis — the legitimation system fails to provide the requisite quantity of generalised motivations.
Motivational crisis — the socio-cultural system fails to generate the requisite quantity of action-motivating meaning.

David Held (Political Theory and the Modern State, 1989) presents two contrasting crisis theories:

Overloaded Government Theory — from pluralist premises (Brittan, Huntington, Nordhaus).
Legitimation Crisis Theory — from Marxist premises (Habermas, Offe).

12.5.1 The Overloaded Government Theory Analysed

Power is shared and bartered by numerous groups representing diverse and competing interests (pluralist premise). The post-war economy generated mass affluence and raised expectations in all fields for all sections of society.

The crisis mechanism:

Politicians and political parties, to secure maximum votes, promise more than they can ever deliver — leading to a spiral of ever-greater promises.
Appeasement strategies prevail: parties avoid strict action for fear of losing votes; they do not enforce radical economic steps.
State agencies relating to health, education, industrial relations, prices, and incomes expand in unwieldy proportions; bureaucracies develop that often fail to meet the ends for which they were designed.
The state proves a failure in providing firm and effective management; unable to meet the cost of its programmes; unable to arrest inflation.
As the state expands, it progressively destroys the realm of individual initiative — space for free and private enterprise is lost.
Democracy becomes only a mechanism, losing its humanitarian value. The state becomes an instrument of powerful economic organised groups. Individual sovereignty exists only in a rhetorical sense; freedom becomes a set of liberties without a base of equality.

Result: legitimation of government is questioned; people’s obligation to obey comes under cloud. A firm and decisive political leadership less responsive to democratic pressures may provide solace.

12.5.2 The Legitimation Crisis Theory Analysed

While political parties compete for office through formal democratic rules, their power is severely constrained by the state’s dependence on resources generated by private capital accumulation.