When Does a Govt. Lose Legimitacy?

[volprof]

Recent discussions concerning international involvement in the domestic affairs of places like Syria, Ukraine, etc. have got me to thinking about not only a national govt.'s legitimacy (that is, its legitimacy in the eyes of its own people) but in a national govt.'s legitimacy concerning foreign intervention.

So, a question:

At what point does a government lose its legitimacy, making international interference or even intervention both reasonable and ethical? In other words, at one point does a government no longer have authority concerning whether or not to "invite" an outside actor in?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

When they elect a president based solely on the color of his skin.

/thread

 

[volprof]

When they elect a president based solely on the color of his skin.

/thread

Never could have guessed this thread would take this direction so soon.

But, to your point, you're suggesting that if a people elect a leader based solely on that leader's skin color, then another nation has the right to intervene, possibly even deposing said leader. Not just that the national government has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many of its constituents. Is this correct?

 

[n_huffhines]

Recent discussions concerning international involvement in the domestic affairs of places like Syria, Ukraine, etc. have got me to thinking about not only a national govt.'s legitimacy (that is, its legitimacy in the eyes of its own people) but in a national govt.'s legitimacy concerning foreign intervention.

So, a question:

At what point does a government lose its legitimacy, making international interference or even intervention both reasonable and ethical? In other words, at one point does a government no longer have authority concerning whether or not to "invite" an outside actor in?

I don't think there needs to be much oppression before intervention becomes ethical, but reasonable is a completely different question. If you could help without royally f***ing up everything and without hurting yourself and your people, then I would be a supporter of intervention.

It may be ethical, but our intervention in the middle east has been no good for us and no good for the ME.

 

[volprof]

I don't think there needs to be much oppression before intervention becomes ethical, but reasonable is a completely different question. If you could help without royally f***ing up everything and without hurting yourself and your people, then I would be a supporter of intervention.

It may be ethical, but our intervention in the middle east has been no good for us and no good for the ME.

In that sense, we might reasonably say that our involvement has become unethical. Which raises another question: when does moral response become unethical, if we see the responsibilities of a legitimate govt. as primarily beholden to the welfare of its own people?

 

[McDad]

When it is inconsistent with involvement based on trade, etc. Ex: human rights violations ignored in China and pursued in other countries.

When it passes so many laws that its own people break them daily without knowing they are doing it.

When it's elected leaders lie or exaggerate in order to intervene.

When it chooses factions of another country's internal battles based on the lesser of evils doctrine.

And many more.

 

[dduncan4163]

When it is inconsistent with involvement based on trade, etc. Ex: human rights violations ignored in China and pursued in other countries.

When it passes so many laws that its own people break them daily without knowing they are doing it.

When it's elected leaders lie or exaggerate in order to intervene.

When it chooses factions of another country's internal battles based on the lesser of evils doctrine.

And many more.

This

 

[Mr_Henley]

When they allow companies and organizations to fund and directly impact their elections.

 

[n_huffhines]

In that sense, we might reasonably say that our involvement has become unethical. Which raises another question: when does moral response become unethical, if we see the responsibilities of a legitimate govt. as primarily beholden to the welfare of its own people?

But don't ethical/unethical imply intent? If the intent is good, can it be unethical? Just semantics, but wondering.

 

[Grand Vol]

But don't ethical/unethical imply intent? If the intent is good, can it be unethical? Just semantics, but wondering.

Your stance would imply some wars are ethical, provided the intent was to help in the end.

But ethics are in the eye of the beholder so to speak and your ethics might not be considered "good" by others. So the ethical intent could be construed as wrong by the opposing party.

Oh good grief, I sound like TRUT.

 

[McDad]

Your stance would imply some wars are ethical, provided the intent was to help in the end.

But ethics are in the eye of the beholder so to speak and your ethics might not be considered "good" by others. So the ethical intent could be construed as wrong by the opposing party.

Oh good grief, I sound like TRUT.

You're frightening me.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

When they engage in counterfeiting.

 

[n_huffhines]

Your stance would imply some wars are ethical, provided the intent was to help in the end.

Aren't they though? I mean ethical is a weird word to use to describe a war, but someone's participation in a war can be completely ethical (altruistic), IMO.

If I see Timmy getting his lunch money taken, I intervene out of a sense of ethics/altruism. The fact that the bully kicks my ass, beats up my little bro, and beats up Timmy even worse because I pissed him off doesn't make my intervention unethical.

Now if the intent of my intervention was to get something out of Timmy for saving him, we might we be in an ethical gray area.

But ethics are in the eye of the beholder so to speak and your ethics might not be considered "good" by others. So the ethical intent could be construed as wrong by the opposing party.

True, which is why I'm trying to stay vague and restrict my discussion to good "intent" without getting too detailed, because then it becomes subjective.

Oh good grief, I sound like TRUT.

lulz

 

[Velo Vol]

Oh good grief, I sound like TRUT.

This is a TRUTesque thread.

Blatant domestic atrocities and violations of human rights.

A government which unilaterally threatens regional peace.

 

[LouderVol]

This is a TRUTesque thread.

Blatant domestic atrocities and violations of human rights.

A government which unilaterally threatens regional peace.

so every country out there?

 

[Grand Vol]

Aren't they though? I mean ethical is a weird word to use to describe a war, but someone's participation in a war can be completely ethical (altruistic), IMO.

If I see Timmy getting his lunch money taken, I intervene out of a sense of ethics/altruism. The fact that the bully kicks my ass, beats up my little bro, and beats up Timmy even worse because I pissed him off doesn't make my intervention unethical.

Now if the intent of my intervention was to get something out of Timmy for saving him, we might we be in an ethical gray area.

True, which is why I'm trying to stay vague and restrict my discussion to good "intent" without getting too detailed, because then it becomes subjective.

I would tend to agree if the motives are altruistic, conflict is ethical. But how many wars in history have ever been truly altruistic in nature? Motives are almost always subjective in nature regardless of if everyone agrees or not. However, I'd like to expand on this point:

Now if the intent of my intervention was to get something out of Timmy for saving him, we might we be in an ethical gray area.

I think it depends on the level of "getting something" on whether the gray area exists or not. Say the United Kingdom during WWII for example. Prior to our entry into the War, we gave some pretty favorable terms on the Lend-Lease Act to the Brits. And afterwards, continued with some favorable terms on trade. Were our motives on the Lend-Lease and or Declaration of War entirely altruistic? No, but we gained a serious ally and friend out of it that continues to have our back (mostly) to this day.

 

[volinbham]

Recent discussions concerning international involvement in the domestic affairs of places like Syria, Ukraine, etc. have got me to thinking about not only a national govt.'s legitimacy (that is, its legitimacy in the eyes of its own people) but in a national govt.'s legitimacy concerning foreign intervention.

So, a question:

At what point does a government lose its legitimacy, making international interference or even intervention both reasonable and ethical? In other words, at one point does a government no longer have authority concerning whether or not to "invite" an outside actor in?

I think it's all a matter of 1) can you (the intervener) convince enough of those who would try to stop you that you are legitimately "trying to help" (the US in Syria) or 2) can you (the intervener) get away with it knowing others won't try to stop you (Russia in Syria).

Technically in 2) it appears at least Russia got an invite from the "elected" leader but I doubt Assad had any say in the matter.

 

[volinbham]

The cynic in me would say that in almost all cases the intervention is guised in ethical intentions but in reality it is a case that the outrage of others that you intervene is sufficiently low that you can effectively use that guise.

A variation on the "there is no selfless act" idea.

Can we find examples of a country that only intervenes when it is reasonable and ethical and does so where ever those conditions exist or is it a case of this intervention will benefit us via stabilization, trade, etc.

 

[volprof]

I think it's all a matter of 1) can you (the intervener) convince enough of those who would try to stop you that you are legitimately "trying to help" (the US in Syria) or 2) can you (the intervener) get away with it knowing others won't try to stop you (Russia in Syria).

Technically in 2) it appears at least Russia got an invite from the "elected" leader but I doubt Assad had any say in the matter.

Syria is obviously the prime historical example for the moment.

Yes, Russia got an invite, but we can rightfully ask to what extent Assad qualifies as a legitimate leader now. For instance, how many of your own people can you kill who aren't even combatants before you lose your legitimacy to rule and to therefore determine what foreign countries can or cannot involve themselves?

You seem mostly to be addressing the related question of what conditions should qualify for intervention, which is a great question as well. I think you're suggesting that a legitimate intervention requires either an international consensus (in your case for the US) or an invitation (in your case for Russia). However, can something like Russia's intervention, as just one example (sure there's plenty for the US as well), be legitimate if the invitation comes from a non-legitimate leader?

 

[volprof]

The cynic in me would say that in almost all cases the intervention is guised in ethical intentions but in reality it is a case that the outrage of others that you intervene is sufficiently low that you can effectively use that guise.

A variation on the "there is no selfless act" idea.

Can we find examples of a country that only intervenes when it is reasonable and ethical and does so where ever those conditions exist or is it a case of this intervention will benefit us via stabilization, trade, etc.

I think the latter. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, particularly when it comes to international relations, but I tend to think there is little to no selfless diplomatic actions.

Take, for instance, what many consider the finest moment of (not just American) national sacrifice for the good of others in the Berlin Airlift. It could have easily started another war (which one might question its ethics for) but still kept Berlin functioning and Berliners eating, provided for, etc. This, however, was surely not done out of altruism. It was done as an early strategic move to position the US in a favorable position as the Cold War was surely approaching.

 

[volinbham]

Syria is obviously the prime historical example for the moment.

Yes, Russia got an invite, but we can rightfully ask to what extent Assad qualifies as a legitimate leader now. For instance, how many of your own people can you kill who aren't even combatants before you lose your legitimacy to rule and to therefore determine what foreign countries can or cannot involve themselves?

You seem mostly to be addressing the related question of what conditions should qualify for intervention, which is a great question as well. I think you're suggesting that a legitimate intervention requires either an international consensus (in your case for the US) or an invitation (in your case for Russia). However, can something like Russia's intervention, as just one example (sure there's plenty for the US as well), be legitimate if the invitation comes from a non-legitimate leader?

First confession is I didn't read the OP carefully enough to include the "reasonable and ethical" so I was more responding to when do other countries think you are illegitimate enough to intervene without repercussions.

On the was Russia really invited in I suggested what you are suggesting - Assad really didn't have much say in the matter and I'm not sure has any legitimate say; I guess no one in Syria does. It's a free for all and only restrained by policy and politics of the long line of potential interveners.

 

[volinbham]

I think the latter. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, particularly when it comes to international relations, but I tend to think there is little to no selfless diplomatic actions.

Take, for instance, what many consider the finest moment of (not just American) national sacrifice for the good of others in the Berlin Airlift. It could have easily started another war (which one might question its ethics for) but still kept Berlin functioning and Berliners eating, provided for, etc. This, however, was surely not done out of altruism. It was done as an early strategic move to position the US in a favorable position as the Cold War was surely approaching.

My compromise (in my mind) is that while I think all intervention is non-selfless, we tend to at at least have more altruistic motives and as a people we often seek to help as opposed to plunder. So on a continuum, we tend to be on the good end.

Overall though, national interests prevail. Since we are pro-trade and pro-democracy our interventions at least have the potential for some positive seeds.

 

[volprof]

First confession is I didn't read the OP carefully enough to include the "reasonable and ethical" so I was more responding to when do other countries think you are illegitimate enough to intervene without repercussions.

On the was Russia really invited in I suggested what you are suggesting - Assad really didn't have much say in the matter and I'm not sure has any legitimate say; I guess no one in Syria does. It's a free for all and only restrained by policy and politics of the long line of potential interveners.

Syria seems like a great example of a crisis wherein there is no legitimate or illegitimate foreign intervention, as far as any rules-based system is concerned. And this is largely because it's a conflict with no apparent rules.

 

[volprof]

This is a TRUTesque thread.

Blatant domestic atrocities and violations of human rights.

A government which unilaterally threatens regional peace.

One could make the case, and indeed many do, that American actions in the Greater Middle East over the past two decades disqualify US govt. legitimacy based upon the factors you mention here.

The case against the US as a legitimate govt. goes like this (and my version is far more benign - and rational - than most I've read):

1. While the US has mostly been a guarantor of Middle Eastern peace since WWII, the last two decades have seen a reversal of this, with the US (particularly in Iraq) contributing to greater instability.

2. The US has indeed killed numerous non-combatants in these areas and has aided/defended authoritarian regimes that neither support democracy nor human rights.

The most challenging rebuttal this position faces is the issue of intention. If killing civilians potentially qualifies a govt. for the non-legitimacy dustbin, then surely non-intention counts for something. In other words, wouldn't malicious intent and/or abject carelessness in the killing of non-combatants have to be present for a state to lose legitimacy?

Further, one could argue that support for such oppressive regimes can in fact be ethical if the alternative is instability and greater amounts of violence. This is basically the position Russia is taking in Syria (although no discussion is given to Assad's atrocities on Russia's part) and for which the US is being condemned for its Syria policy. It may indeed be hypocritical on the US's part, but, then again, does hypocrisy qualify as a factor discrediting a govt.'s legitimacy?

 

[Sandvol]

Never could have guessed this thread would take this direction so soon.

But, to your point, you're suggesting that if a people elect a leader based solely on that leader's skin color, then another nation has the right to intervene, possibly even deposing said leader. Not just that the national government has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of many of its constituents. Is this correct?

Might makes right.