Dissent and Legitimacy

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS
Geoffrey D. Callaghan
{"title":"Dissent and Legitimacy","authors":"Geoffrey D. Callaghan","doi":"10.1515/mopp-2021-0073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An often overlooked tension in liberal theory turns on its commitment to procedural accounts of legitimacy on the one hand, and to the robust protection of the right of citizens to dissent on the other. To the extent that one evaluates legitimate decision-making on the basis of the procedures that bear on it, determining how extra-procedural expressions of dissent fit into the picture becomes a complex undertaking. This is especially true if one accepts that protecting extra-procedural expressions of dissent is itself foundational to the overall legitimacy of the state. My aim in this paper is to explore some of the implications that follow from this tension. The paper proceeds in two parts. In the first part, I review the political grounds that support a protection on dissent. By drawing on its republican foundations, I argue that the functional role that the right to dissent serves in complex political communities is intimately connected to concerns over legitimacy. I claim that for the right to perform its function successfully, protections must be placed on both procedural and extra-procedural forms of dissent. The second part of the paper issues a direct challenge to procedural accounts of legitimacy. If a protection on citizen dissent is vital to legitimating government action, and if that protection necessarily extends to both procedural and extra-procedural forms of dissent, it follows that legitimacy cannot be captured by procedure alone—even procedures that secure the fair and equal participation by all affected parties.","PeriodicalId":37108,"journal":{"name":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","volume":"102 1","pages":"69 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2021-0073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract An often overlooked tension in liberal theory turns on its commitment to procedural accounts of legitimacy on the one hand, and to the robust protection of the right of citizens to dissent on the other. To the extent that one evaluates legitimate decision-making on the basis of the procedures that bear on it, determining how extra-procedural expressions of dissent fit into the picture becomes a complex undertaking. This is especially true if one accepts that protecting extra-procedural expressions of dissent is itself foundational to the overall legitimacy of the state. My aim in this paper is to explore some of the implications that follow from this tension. The paper proceeds in two parts. In the first part, I review the political grounds that support a protection on dissent. By drawing on its republican foundations, I argue that the functional role that the right to dissent serves in complex political communities is intimately connected to concerns over legitimacy. I claim that for the right to perform its function successfully, protections must be placed on both procedural and extra-procedural forms of dissent. The second part of the paper issues a direct challenge to procedural accounts of legitimacy. If a protection on citizen dissent is vital to legitimating government action, and if that protection necessarily extends to both procedural and extra-procedural forms of dissent, it follows that legitimacy cannot be captured by procedure alone—even procedures that secure the fair and equal participation by all affected parties.
异议与合法性
自由主义理论中一个经常被忽视的紧张关系,一方面是对合法性的程序解释的承诺,另一方面是对公民持不同意见权利的有力保护。在某种程度上,人们是根据与之相关的程序来评估合法决策的,因此,确定程序外的异议表达如何符合这一情况就成了一项复杂的任务。如果人们承认,保护程序外的异议表达本身就是国家整体合法性的基础,那么这一点尤其正确。我在本文中的目的是探讨这种紧张关系所带来的一些含义。本文分为两部分。在第一部分中,我回顾了支持保护异议的政治依据。通过借鉴其共和基础,我认为,异议权在复杂的政治社区中发挥的功能作用与对合法性的担忧密切相关。我主张,要使这项权利成功地履行其职能,就必须保护程序性和程序性以外的异议形式。论文的第二部分对合法性的程序解释提出了直接挑战。如果对公民异议的保护对政府行为的合法化至关重要,如果这种保护必然延伸到程序和程序外的异议形式,那么合法性就不能仅仅通过程序来获得——即使是确保所有受影响方公平和平等参与的程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Moral Philosophy and Politics
Moral Philosophy and Politics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信