The Right To Rule

At an unsettled time for liberal democracy, with global eruptions of authoritarian and arbitrary rule, here is one of the first full-fledged philosophical accounts of what makes governments legitimate. What makes a government legitimate? The dominant view is that public officials have the right to rule us, even if they are unfair or unfit, as long as they gain power through procedures traceable to the consent of the governed. In this rigorous and timely study, Arthur Isak Applbaum argues that adherence to procedure is not enough: even a properly chosen government does not rule legitimately if it fails to protect basic rights, to treat its citizens as political equals, or to act coherently. How are we to reconcile every person’s entitlement to freedom with the necessity of coercive law? Applbaum’s answer is that a government legitimately governs its citizens only if the government is a free group agent constituted by free citizens. To be a such a group agent, a government must uphold three principles. The liberty principle, requiring that the basic rights of citizens be secured, is necessary to protect against inhumanity, a tyranny in practice. The equality principle, requiring that citizens have equal say in selecting who governs, is necessary to protect against despotism, a tyranny in title. The agency principle, requiring that a government’s actions reflect its decisions and its decisions reflect its reasons, is necessary to protect against wantonism, a tyranny of unreason. Today, Applbaum writes, the greatest threat to the established democracies is neither inhumanity nor despotism but wantonism, the domination of citizens by incoherent, inconstant, and incontinent rulers. A government that cannot govern itself cannot legitimately govern others.

Reveals Queen Victoria as a ruler who captivated feminist activists - with profound consequences for nineteenth-century culture and politics.

This book explores the portrayal of the rise, reign, and demise of Abimelech in Judges 9 and asks about whose interests this portrayal may have served. The negative depiction of Abimelech's kingship in this chapter, coupled with Gideon's rejection of kingship in Judges 8:22-23, has led interpreters to view the passage as anti-monarchic. This perspective clashes with the pro-monarchic stance of Judges 17-21. However, while the portrayal of Abimelech's kingship is negative, it may yet have served as a legitimation strategy for the monarchy. In support, this study examines Judges 9 through three methodological lenses: a narrative analysis, a rhetorical analysis and a social scientific analysis. In addition, anthropological data on early and developing states shows that such states attempt to prevent fissioning (the tendency inherent within political systems to break up and form other similar units) by subverting local leaders, groups, and institutions, and so legitimate the centralization of power. When read in this light, Judges 9 supports monarchic interests by seeking to subvert localized rule and alliances in favor of a centralized polity.

In The Right to Rule: American Exceptionalism and the Coming Multipolar World Order, Hugh De Santis explores the evolution of American exceptionalism and its effect on the nation’s relations with the external world. De Santis argues that the self-image of an exceptional, providentially blessed society unlike any other is a myth that pays too little heed to the history that shaped America’s emergence, including its core beliefs and values, which are inheritances from seventeenth-century England. From the republic’s founding to its rise as the world’s preeminent power, American exceptionalism has underpinned the nation’s foreign policy, but it has become an anachronism in the twenty-first century. De Santis argues that, in the emerging multipolar world order, the United States will be one of several powers that determine the structure and rules of international politics, rather than the sole arbiter.

Popular perceptions of a state's legitimacy are inextricably bound to its ability to rule. Vast military and material reserves cannot counter the power of a citizen's belief, and the more widespread the crisis of a state's legitimacy, the greater the threat to its stability. Even such established democracies as France and India are losing their moral claims over society, while such highly illiberal states as China and Iran enjoy strong showings of public support. Through a remarkable fusion of empirical research and theory, Bruce Gilley makes clear the link between political consent and political rule. Fixing a definition of legitimacy that is both general and particular, he is able to study the role of legitimacy as it has been maintained and lost in a diverse selection of societies. He begins by detailing the origins of state legitimacy and the methods governments have used to wield it best. He then considers the habits of less successful states, exploring how the process works across different styles of government. Gilley's unique approach merges a broad study of legitimacy and performance in seventy-two states with a detailed empirical analysis of the mechanisms of legitimation. The results are tested on a case study of Uganda, a country that, after 1986, began to recover from decades of civil war. Considering a range of explanations of other domestic and international phenomena as well, Gilley ultimately argues that, because of its evident real-world importance, legitimacy should occupy a central place in political analysis.

"It is difficult to decide which is the more impressive: the authority and control with which Mr. Bendix writes of the traditions, the institutions, and the technological and social developments of cultures as diverse as the British, French, German, Russian, and Japanese, or the skill with which he weaves his separate stories into a persuasive scenario of the modern revolution. A remarkable achievement."--Gordon A. Craig, Stanford University ""Kings or People" is equal to the grandeur of its subject: the political origins of the modern world. With Barrington Moore's "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy" and Immanuels Wallerstein's "The Modern World System" which it matches in boldness, while differing radically in perspective, it is one of the truly powerful ventures in comparative historical sociology to have appeared in recent years."--Clifford Geertz "A brilliant achievement that will be equally fascinating for the general reader, the student, and the specialized scholar."--Henry W. Ehrmann

Presents the legal cases for self-determination in East Timor, Kosovo, Chechnya, Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and in South Sudan.