legitimacy and popular approval

Assess the claim that legitimacy requires popular approval. (AO3)

Plato argued that legitimacy does not rest on popular approval and instead requires theoretical authority (an ability and the expertise/knowledge to govern). He believed that gaining consent from the people through a democracy is problematic as people are more likely to consent what they want (which can be based on irrational emotions and desires), rather than what is good for them. Thus, he makes the argument that politics should be about the common good and that politicians should be knowledgeable about what this common good is and how to go about achieving it. (AO1)

Firstly, although what Plato argues is plausible, it is also unreasonable to entirely reject democracy in favour of some other form of government - it could be argued that democracy is the most realistic and least problematic of the options available; other forms of government (e.g. dictatorship) have proven to be prone to corruption, therefore, although democracy has its flaws, it's impractical to suggest so without also suggesting a realistic, or less problematic solution. Furthermore, at least in gaining popular approval (through a democracy) corruption is avoided, therefore making it the safest, most effective option.

Hume rejects Plato's distinction between what is good and what the people want, and suggests that the two are synonymous - he believed that what the people want is personally beneficial, and what is beneficial is good, therefore knowledge of what people want for society is what is good. However, Plato would argue that people are often confused about what is really beneficial, and legitimacy rests on what really is beneficial, not what people think is. A weakness of this idea is that it rejects the view that individuals are free and equal as it states that people will inevitably be unable to decide what they want for themselves and consequently that they should be forced to obey the state without consent. Whereas an advantage of basing legitimacy on popular approval is that it respects and protects these values and individuals' autonomy, thus supporting this view overall.

[insert conclusion?]


Discuss the relation between obligation, the right to dissent and consent.

The relation between political obligation and consent is that a person can only have an obligation to obey the law when they consent to do so - for example, voting is seen as a platform of which provides consent. However, if this is the case, it could be argued then that if a person chooses not to vote (i.e. to dissent) then they have no obligation to obey the law - if true, this is problematic because then only those who vote, or those who vote for a party that accepts the current system, have to obey the law, which then implies that the government has no justified authority over those who dissent/don't vote. Furthermore, even if those who choose not to vote/dissent still have an obligation to obey the law, then this would imply that their dissent is meaningless, which is also problematic as their dissent has no effect on their relation to the state i.e. they still have to obey.

It could be argued that these explanations are too simplistic, and rather, political obligation requires the right to consent - there are other legitimate democratic platforms a person can use, such as joining pressure groups, which can express dissent, and for that dissent to have meaning i.e. it can have an effect on the government.

However, an objection of this counter-argument is that political obligation should be based on freedom and equality - in joining pressure groups and other forms of influence, the individual does not have equal influence, therefore while this secures political obligation, it doesn't protect equality. Furthermore, it could be argued that, by joining things like pressure groups, consent is no longer the basis of a person's political obligation, rather, political obligation is based on the opportunity to engage in legitimate activity (but this opportunity isn't equivalent to consent), therefore perhaps there is no political obligation (as there's technically no consent being provided).


Assess the role consequences play in justifying civil disobedience.

The consequences on civil disobedience can be harmful for society, for example, they may encourage disrespect for the law, increase political instability, or even encourage retaliation from other's who don't support the aims of the protest - these potential consequences may make certain acts of civil disobedience unjustifiable. Therefore, it is important for those taking action to consider whether gaining the desired outcome is likely, or realistic to happen, otherwise the act of civil disobedience would be irresponsible.

However, while there are potential negative consequences of civil disobedience which may make the act unjustifiable, there are certain features of civil disobedience which generally avoid these dangers. Firstly, protesters are usually willing to submit to punishment - this shows that they have a general respect for the authority of law, which is likely to minimise any further disrespect or disobedience, therefore arguably justifying the act itself. Furthermore, this shows that protesters feel strongly about the things they are trying to change, therefore the act is not for personal gain but rather a genuine belief that what they are protesting for is the right thing to do. This would likely diminish any stigma or resentment from those who disagree with the protesters as they are more likely to respect their beliefs, therefore decreasing any risk of harmful retaliation. Thus, making the act of civil disobedience more justifiable as it isn't increasing any major harmful risks on society.

However, overall it is important to consider that acts of civil disobedience differ from one another, therefore making it difficult to place an accurate decision on whether or not all acts are justifiable. Thus, because the consequences of acts differ from one another, it could be argued that each individual act must be judged by the context it is in, rather than following strict guidelines of what is just or unjust.


Assess the view that, to be justified, civil disobedience must aim to change a substantial injustice.

Rawls believed that the motivation of civil disobedience must be a clear and substantial injustice, this is because he believed that this is the only way to justify breaking the law in the first place. However, it could be argued that the injustice must only be in proportionate with the specific act of civil disobedience for it to be justified - for example, a group of parents illegally blocking a street as part of a campaign to get a crossing installed for their children - according to Rawl, this act of civil disobedience may be unjustified simply because the issue isn't socially substantial, but this clearly isn't right. Therefore, this goes against Rawls' view that an injustice must be substantial for civil disobedience to be justified as, as exemplified, a small protest for a small aim is not obviously wrong.

Assess the claim that violent direct action that goes beyond civil disobedience cannot be justified.

Some characteristics of direct action (that isn't legal or doesn't take the form of civil disobedience) are that it is covert, that the protesters do not submit to arrest or punishment, and that it works through violence. A view to support the claim that this type of direct action cannot be justified is the general view that violence can never be justified if it is used against innocent people, for instance, even in war targeting non-troops is not (usually) justified.

However, some may disagree with this and claim that if the end goal of the action is important enough then it is justifiable to kill people who don't contribute to the injustice they are protesting about. This is a problematic and controversial argument which comes very close, or could arguably be considered a form of terrorism. However, most involved in this type of direct action do not refer to themselves using this term and rather argue that the act is justifiable if it attacks the people contributing to the injustice. For example, this argument may be used against people who use the threat of violence against people who carry out abortions or experimental research on animals; part of the defences in these two cases, however, are that both of the injustices also involve death and violence i.e. death of foetuses and animals. Thus, it could be argued that direct action of this kind can be justified if the aim is to prevent violence against innocent creatures.

Overall, these are complicated moral issues, but from a political standpoint, according to Locke and Hobbes, the most important value that the state protects is security. Therefore, to violate this by using violence when one disagrees with the state is unjustifiable as it is challenging the exact reason why the state exists in the first place. The state exists to help people co-exist peacefully, rather than living in a state of nature whereby people decide things individually rather than as a society as a whole, which would most likely cause violence. Therefore, politically, justifying this form of direct action is extremely difficult as it's contradictory of the foundations of the state itself.