I think this is a very strict small-r republican moral framework for understanding government legitimacy, but I don’t think the consent of the governed has to strictly come from casting ballots in an election.
When a government loses their legitimacy they have to rely on violence against their own people to remain in power, and this is true whether there are elections or not. Zelensky would lose power if he was not kidnapping Ukrainians off the street to fight Russia, therefore, he needs to employ violence to retain power.
Compare that with Hamas, who never lack fighters and don’t bother with conscripts because the masses are willing to fight and die for them.
Hamas is able to operate because of the many people willing to volunteer their help as smugglers/informants or hide them from Israel intelligence or join them directly as fighters. Guerillas live and die by their support from the people, a guerilla movement like Hamas would not be able to exist without the masses. Their continued existence, itself, proves legitimacy imo
Not to say that Zelensky has lost legitimacy, per se, just to say that I don’t think using a moral framework based on elections will tell the whole story. I do question his legitimacy, though, which is why I don’t think he’ll be in power next year. Hamas, on the other hand, isn’t going anywhere.
I never felt I was presenting a moral framework based on legitimacy. You seem to be implying that just because I can’t label guerrilla fighters as a “legitimate government” I don’t think they have a moral right to resist?
Legitimacy and morality are completely separated to me. I think Trump is a perfect example of that. I accept he was elected as a legitimate leader, but he clearly has no moral justification for power and it is our moral duty to resist despite his “legitimacy”.
We must prioritize defending human rights before social constructs.
That’s why “legitimacy” breaks down here, legitimacy is a social construct we can only focus on in a collaborative environment when we’re not killing each other. It’s agreeing to international borders, boundaries, and non interference in each other’s governments. If we all start invading everyone then the construct we’ve built on a philosophy of peace time goes away which is why as you point out if it were a moral framework would be really flimsy.
Legitimacy as a moral judgement I think only works in a world where Israel is acting in good faith and actually wants to avoid war crimes and is held accountable for its crimes in a court of law.
Genocide is so much worse than illegitimate rulers so I’m really not interested in the legitimacy of Hamas as a question to begin with. Doesn’t seem important. I know they have a moral right to resist and whoever does the resisting isn’t going to be “legitimate” until after they’ve already won so I’m not gonna judge them for it.
Ideally let’s stop the genocide, let’s build back infrastructure, then we can hold elections and see who’s legitimate.
I think this is a very strict small-r republican moral framework for understanding government legitimacy, but I don’t think the consent of the governed has to strictly come from casting ballots in an election.
When a government loses their legitimacy they have to rely on violence against their own people to remain in power, and this is true whether there are elections or not. Zelensky would lose power if he was not kidnapping Ukrainians off the street to fight Russia, therefore, he needs to employ violence to retain power.
Compare that with Hamas, who never lack fighters and don’t bother with conscripts because the masses are willing to fight and die for them.
Hamas is able to operate because of the many people willing to volunteer their help as smugglers/informants or hide them from Israel intelligence or join them directly as fighters. Guerillas live and die by their support from the people, a guerilla movement like Hamas would not be able to exist without the masses. Their continued existence, itself, proves legitimacy imo
Not to say that Zelensky has lost legitimacy, per se, just to say that I don’t think using a moral framework based on elections will tell the whole story. I do question his legitimacy, though, which is why I don’t think he’ll be in power next year. Hamas, on the other hand, isn’t going anywhere.
I never felt I was presenting a moral framework based on legitimacy. You seem to be implying that just because I can’t label guerrilla fighters as a “legitimate government” I don’t think they have a moral right to resist?
Legitimacy and morality are completely separated to me. I think Trump is a perfect example of that. I accept he was elected as a legitimate leader, but he clearly has no moral justification for power and it is our moral duty to resist despite his “legitimacy”.
We must prioritize defending human rights before social constructs.
That’s why “legitimacy” breaks down here, legitimacy is a social construct we can only focus on in a collaborative environment when we’re not killing each other. It’s agreeing to international borders, boundaries, and non interference in each other’s governments. If we all start invading everyone then the construct we’ve built on a philosophy of peace time goes away which is why as you point out if it were a moral framework would be really flimsy.
Legitimacy as a moral judgement I think only works in a world where Israel is acting in good faith and actually wants to avoid war crimes and is held accountable for its crimes in a court of law.
Genocide is so much worse than illegitimate rulers so I’m really not interested in the legitimacy of Hamas as a question to begin with. Doesn’t seem important. I know they have a moral right to resist and whoever does the resisting isn’t going to be “legitimate” until after they’ve already won so I’m not gonna judge them for it.
Ideally let’s stop the genocide, let’s build back infrastructure, then we can hold elections and see who’s legitimate.