Bush: Pakistan is a Democracy

[Bosh]

This is nothing new Reagan continually mouthed off about Ferdinand Marco's love for democracy and freedom.

[MrFun]

I know . . . . .


some things from the Cold War have stayed with us, unfortunately. Let's hear it for supporting anti-democratic governments in order to spread democracy!!!

[Ramo]

As I said, what really gets me is the idea that Pakistan should be held up as an example of a Muslim state that doesn't need a dictatorship, and Musharraf should prosletyze this idea. It really is surreal.

[Seeker]

"Are you saying that before democracy there were no legitimate governments?"

Of course not. I mentioned religion, ethnic loyalty and ideology as the three main ways states legitimize themselves.

Look at the building of the pyramids as a perfect example.

In reality, the rulers of egypt were papmered men who who could tell other men to go stick spears in their enemies. That's power.

However, these rulers legitimzed themselves by building up an elaborate religion, the cult of the god-kings, and spending enourmous amounts of energy on great projects desgned to legitimize their power. That's political legitimacy.

Charlemagne, in your example, as a guy with a bunch of knights who could chop you up if they didn't like you. That's military power.

But Charlemagne was also very good at using religion, championing the church, legal institutions, and other techniques of legitimacy.

If Charlemagne HADN'T bothered to legitimze his political power and had merely been another warlrod with a bunch of armoured thugs, he would not have been able to create the state that he did. Power creates states; legitimacy perpetuates them.

Let's fast forward a couple of years...here, in the 21st century, most educated people believe that legitimacy comes from a mandate from the people, not from being a god-king, or from god, or from being the 'Father of the People'.

Musharraf doesn't have 21 century, liberal democratic legitimacy. He has power, in that the army will shoot or drag away his enemies, but very little legitimacy.

There is a big difference between mere power and legitimacy. Rules and states CRAVE legitimacy, they'll do almost anything to get it, from building monuments to enacting sweeping constitutional reforms. Obviously what constitutes 'legitimacy' changes with the times.

The ruler of Turkmenistan runs a dictatorship based on personality and ethnic loyalty, calling himselft 'the Father of All Turkmen'. That's a justification for his states power that would've been valid in the 14th century, but today we laugh at it. What counts as legitimacy changes with the historical changes in religion, ethnic/racial identities, and ideology.

A great example: Napoleon's march to Paris. A man without real military power, but with tremendous legitimacy among the French people of the time.

Another example: Tamerlane, the mongol conqueror of the 14th century never lost a battle. His military power was invincible, yet his state collapsed in a short time, like a fire across the prairie, because it totally lacked legitimacy in the minds of the Persians, Turks, and Afghans who lived there. They had no reason to obey the Timurid state other than the threat of naked force. Their power extened only as far as they could ride in a given month because they lacked legitimacy.

Why didn't Tokugawa Ieyasu simply kill the Emperor and rule Japan? Easy: Despite his total, absolute military power he would have lost all legitimacy. The rulers of Japan have long used the Imperial family to legitimize their power. .....yet, these days in Japan power is legitimized by a popular mandate.

Let's put it this way: Let's say the US military tried to stage a coup. Their power is great, no bunch of NRA types could stop them. Yet the idea is ridiculous not because they lack military powerm but because they would lack legitimacy, a military coup in the US would fall apart after a year if was ever successful because Americans (and other 21st century people) regard dictatorships as illegitimate.

It's all about legitimacy; the British Empire fell apart because it could no longer legitimize itself, not from lack of power.

Why do you think dictatorships in Third World countries are constantly toppling and being replaced? Because they have near 0 legitimacy, no matter how many rockets or tanks they have legitimacy, especially in this information age, is far more important than power.

That's why Bush is dangerous for America, because he increasingly delegitimizes American power.

[MrFun]

great post, Seeker

[Imran Siddiqui]

Power creates states; legitimacy perpetuates them.

And power creates legitimacy. Do you think there are people who have no beliefs and are just for the power? The religion, the ideology, that is the stuff they believe and the stuff they've used to gain followers. And as they gain power more people think there may be something to that religion and ideology. Power creates its own legitimacy and has for generations. If you can put down the rebels that spring up every now and then, you are the legitimate ruler.

It's all about legitimacy; the British Empire fell apart because it could no longer legitimize itself, not from lack of power.

That's BS. The British Empire fell because WW1 and WW2 destroyed their power. They were unwilling to send the troops to keep the empire. There was never any 'legitimacy' for the British empire outside of power.

Why do you think dictatorships in Third World countries are constantly toppling and being replaced?

Because they cannot excerize their power over the entire country. Groups that have power have control over portions of the country.

Look at Spain under Franco. A man who probably was not favored by the majority took over power and created his own legitimacy. Then the people came over to the winner as he eliminated opposition. His power over the state created his own 'legtimacy'.

In the end, that is what everything comes down to.. power.

[Seeker]

"In the end, that is what everything comes down to.. power"

well let's just agree to disagree because as a liberal I believe that's just horse****.

I have reasons, I think they're good ones, but this is obviously a point of ideology for you and I'm not going to spend my time writing novels about political theory here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

well let's just agree to disagree because as a liberal

Well I guess Foucault could be considered a radical... fine then.

[Nubclear]

Imran, I'm glad you've finally seen why the Soviet Union infact was a democracy
Stalin, a man who probably wasn't so popular, eventually won over the hearts of the Soviet people - as he eliminated the opposition

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lord Putin

[Straybow]

That's why Bush is dangerous for America, because he increasingly delegitimizes American power.

Moronic statement.

[Seeker]

"Moronic statement"

Retarded sentence fragment.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Mussssshhhhharrrrrraffff (can never remember how many consonants of each kind to put) seized power in a military coup, deposing a democratically elected president. He's held a referendum on the issue since then in which he supposedly won 98% support. Your call. Dictatorship or democracy?

It must be a democracy. Bush only got 51% and the U.S. is a democracy, so Pakistan must be even more democratic. 47% more.

[Zevico]

So the State Department calls Iran a democracy and no one *****es. It's an alliance of convenience, people. Anyone who takes him seriously is off his rocker.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Legitimacy is having power over the country. It has nothing to do with democratic elections.

Yep, it is the power to enforce rule of law within the country and the diplomatic standing within the world to not be toppled by outside sovereignties.