Consent and Legitimacy

This topic examines whether the legitimacy of political authority rests on the consent of the governed, and how legitimacy relates to the authority and justification of the state.

Definition

Legitimacy is the property by which a state's holding and exercising of political power is morally justified; consent theory holds that this property derives from the agreement of those subject to the authority.

Scope

Covers consent theory and its distinction between express, tacit, and hypothetical consent, the objection that few citizens have actually consented, and rival non-consensual accounts of legitimacy and authority (such as Raz's service conception). It complements political obligation and the social-contract tradition.

Core questions

• Does political legitimacy require the consent of the governed?
• Can tacit or hypothetical consent do the justificatory work of express consent?
• Is legitimacy distinct from authority and from justice?
• Can authority be justified without consent, by the quality of its directives?

Key concepts

• consent of the governed
• express, tacit, and hypothetical consent
• legitimacy vs. authority
• the normal justification thesis
• the service conception
• the consent dilemma

Key theories

Consent theory

Locke argues that since all are naturally free and equal, no one can be subjected to political power without their own consent, so legitimate government rests on the agreement of the governed.

The critique of tacit consent

Simmons argues that the standard appeals to tacit consent — through residence or enjoying benefits — fail to constitute genuine consent, so consent theory cannot ground the legitimacy of actual states for most citizens.

The service conception of authority

Raz argues that authority is legitimate when its directives help subjects better conform to the reasons that already apply to them (the normal justification thesis), so legitimacy can rest on this service rather than on consent.

History

Consent theory was central to Locke (1689) and the social-contract tradition, but was challenged early by Hume's essay 'Of the Original Contract' (1748), which doubted that real states rest on consent. Twentieth-century work by Simmons sharpened the critique, while Raz (1986) developed an influential non-consensual, service-based account of legitimate authority.

Debates

Is consent necessary for legitimacy?

Whether legitimate authority strictly requires the consent of the governed, as Locke holds, or can be grounded non-consensually in the quality and service of its directives, as Raz argues.

Can tacit consent bind?

Whether mere residence or acceptance of benefits counts as genuine consent capable of grounding legitimacy and obligation, which Simmons denies.

Key figures

• John Locke
• A. John Simmons
• Joseph Raz
• David Hume

Seminal works

• locke1689
• raz1986

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between legitimacy and authority?

Legitimacy concerns whether a state is morally justified in holding and using power, while authority concerns whether its directives generate a duty of obedience; a state could be legitimate yet command only limited obligation.