The misuse of the words ‘legitimacy’ and ‘terrorist’ in politics

It is sometimes the case that emotionally laden words and high-sounding concepts use what can only be described as semantic piggybacking.  Their moral foundation rests on another meaning of the same word in order to make a different, less justified context more meaningful. 

In regular usage, ‘legitimacy’ refers not just to conformation to the law but to moral justification.

Oxforddictionaries.com defines ‘legitimacy’ as “a. Conformity to the law or to rules. B. Ability to be defended with logic or justification; validity.”

The definitions of this word can be numerous but run roughly along the same lines.  However, when the same word is spoken in politics, it often simply refers to recognition of a state or authority by outside forces. 

The constituent theory of statehood holds that a state cannot be legitimate unless acknowledged by an already recognised state.  The problem is that it lacks the former foundation of regular usage: moral justification.

Any ‘thug-archy’ can be recognised by UN member states, however abusive, theocratic, undemocratic and even genocidal.  Any violent (or even non-violent) opposition to the recognised powers can be regarded as illegitimate regardless of whether the opposition party or state is a democratic entity. 

Idi Amin, a 'Legitimate' Dictator 

'Illegitimate' captured Jewish Resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto

Many examples of this are found within the Terrorism Research Analysis Consortium (TRAC).  Any armed group is labelled a terrorist organisation regardless of the extent or type of violence or whether or not they are the democratic force fighting a tyrannical entity.  The only criteria for inclusion are that they are unrecognised or non-state entities.

If this is all that political legitimacy means, then it is unimportant whether or not a state is legitimate.  It is an unworthy concept.  If these statements sound outrageous, then it means that one has confused the distinctions between the two concepts.

Recognition is only necessary for diplomatic relations.  It is not necessary to have this in order to have a functioning government and state apparatus with benign intent. 

Legitimacy is based within law.  Justified laws must be grounded in morality.

Some good examples of these concepts are the following states:

Artsakh, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Taiwan.  All of these states have de facto ownership of the territories that they govern.  Taiwan also has de facto control of its territory.  It is much better established than the other states mentioned by is only officially recognised by a handful of states.  This is due to the fact that both Taiwan and the widely recognised Peoples Republic of China claim sovereignty over each other’s territory.  These territories have informal relations with other countries and in the case of the first three, only formal relations with each other.  However, each has its own functioning state apparatus with all the accoutrements of statehood, such as a military, police force etc.   

Artsakh Parliament building in Stepanakert

Artsakh and Abkhazia are listed in the TRAC consortium as terrorist organisations.  They have not committed any more crimes (in fact, far fewer) than many other states that are recognised in the geographical vicinity. 

Curiously enough, the Viet Cong aren’t listed as a terrorist organisation in the consortium, despite the fact that their massacres of civilians were deliberate, prolific and stated by themselves as calculated terrorism.  They were merely a state-sponsored insurgency in South Vietnam that worked in tandem with the conventional North Vietnamese Army (NVA).

Viet Cong massacre at Dak Son

 This raises the question of how much criticism a party in conflict can avoid simply by winning.  When one wins decisively enough, the world has no choice but to deal with the victor, however reluctantly. 

The United Nations, which is responsible for policy, should bear in mind that the three most powerful countries ever to be a part of the UN were formed by successful insurgencies.  These were the Soviet Union (Russian Civil War), China (Chinese Civil War) and America in their war for independence from Britain. 

Another problem with this vague concept of constituent legitimacy is the extent of recognition.  How many states need to recognise another state for it to be considered legitimate? Israel and Palestine are each recognised by over a hundred different countries, yet only one government (that of Israel) truly governs the area. 

The recognition-based theory of statehood needs to be thoroughly revised or discarded entirely.  Outside acknowledgement of a state means nothing if it is not fully recognised by the population it governs.  This fact has led to the far more tenable principle of ‘consent of the governed’.

“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal”.  It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.  Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.