You know I verge on the ridiculous with some of the comparisons I make in these posts, but bear with this one – it is of gigantically ridiculous proportions, even for me. Â But there is, hopefully, a point somewhere here, which I think is worth exploring.
As you’ll know if you read this blog regularly, I’ve had a bit of an obsession with democracy recently, based mostly on the research I’ve been doing. Â That obsession is likely to change to relate more to political theory (I’m teaching it this semester) but the two dovetail quite appropriately when considering the uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East at the moment.
What we’ve seen, in each case there thus far, is protesters gathering in opposition to their governments, demonstrating that opposition by employing both peaceful and not-so-peaceful methods, gathering momentum against the regime and, in some cases already, bringing down their government. Â In turn, what we have seen from governments in these places has been varying levels of reaction to the protests, from policing them through to turning their armies and air forces against the public.
At the outset here, I want to point out I’m not condoning either violence against governments or violence against citizens.  And neither do I want to risk further irritating  some folks on twitter who already think I’m not taking the Libyan case seriously enough because I happened to concentrate on the political communication aspect of it.  And, thirdly, I don’t want to compare the aspects of democracy that we enjoy (and perhaps not cherish, though we should) here with the Gaddafi regime in Libya… but there are similarities, not with the regimes, but with the protests and reactions to them.
Think of the UK situation – remember the havoc caused in London by the protests against the government’s decision to increase the charge for students in England to go to university. Â Remember the anger felt by people, the level of rage in the demonstrations, (fire extinguishers thrown off buildings at policemen) the damage to property and, of course, the violence involved – in protest at the actions of our governing regime.
Think of Egypt and of Libya. Â Okay, the reasons for the protests there are different – they want rid of dictatorial tyrants and in their place – democracy (the irony in which I’ve dealt with in a previous post) whereas we’re demonstrating because we have a democratic government who said one thing to get elected and did something else when they got into power (okay, I’m paraphrasing – but it helps make my point!). Â But they’ve taken to the streets, employed peaceful demonstrations, rioted and even moved into open rebellion (in the latter case more than the former) in order to get their way.
And both here in the UK, and in Egypt and Libya, the governments have moved to secure their position, in our case employing riot police to control the protests, in Egypt both police and army in unison (though in a mostly peacekeeping manner) and in Libya, the army, using live ammunition, as the situation has descended into open conflict.
The point I’m making is that governments – both democratic and totalitarian – take measures in order to secure themselves against their people. Â In our case, this is a bit of a paradox – democracy, in Lincoln’s famous phrase, is “government of the people, by the people, for the people” – so the government shouldn’t be afraid of the people it represents.
But what it boils down to really is your perception of the state and who has legitimacy over the state structure – in business terms, I guess, who owns the brand? Â Here, we accept representative government – but we like to remind them now and again that we have the power to overthrow them, if we can be bothered putting down our pints to go out and actually do it. Â So I suppose, the state is the state – and this means that they, to cite Max Weber, have a monopoly over the legitimate use of force, so we accept the role of the police in managing protests against them.
In Libya, (and again, to a lesser extent in Egypt) we in the West seem to have decided that the state leaders – Gaddafi’s regime – has lost legitimacy, and therefore the right to claim the legitimate use of force. Â Which means that their use of the armed forces against the people – to secure their position – is unacceptable.
Look, I know the comparisons are off (not least because in North Africa we are talking about significant loss of life whereas in London folk suffered minor inconvenience in travel for one day) and we’re talking about the use of a civilian police force to effectively do crowd control against an army told to fire against crowds of people – but isn’t there something of an inconsistency here?
This thought isn’t quite clear in my head, so I do appreciate people’s thoughts on it. Â But if we accept that one of the factors that constitutes the legitimacy of a state is monopoly over the use of violence (Max Weber’s definition) then we have to accept that the state CAN use violence (or the threat of violence) to secure its position (this is consistent with the police in London for example, taking “violence” in loose terms to include “incarceration against your will”). Â If that follows, Gaddafi is within his rights to use the army to protect the state. Â But we’ve decided his regime is not legitimate… or at the very least, his use of force to preserve the regime is not legitimate. Â But does that then mean that we don’t think force should be used to protect governments? Â Or is it simply the level of force he was/is employing?
Answers on a postcard to UN Security Council…
#1 by Richard on February 26, 2011 - 12:15 pm
I think I can hear the sound of cans of worms being opened here Malc.
Different cultures have different views on what constitutes reasonable use of force and reasonable levels of acceptable protest, but I don’t know of any culture that condones the use of firearms by trained soldiers against unarmed civilians. Yes, there is open revolt now in Libya, but that wasn’t the case in the beginning.
I think if you were looking for a parallel in our culture, you would be better looking towards the Peterloo Masacre of 1819; a time when our democracy was much less mature, and when the government of the day was worried by political upheaval in neighbouring countries.
#2 by Malc on February 26, 2011 - 1:10 pm
Thanks Richard – and yes, cans and worms.
I guess the analogy doesn’t work – and I freely admit that. But its more the exploration of legitimacy of the state that I’m interested, not necessarily the violence aspect. At what point do we start deciding that the protesters – both in Egypt and Libya – are right to challenge the state? And thus, when does the state lose legitimacy?
#3 by Richard on February 26, 2011 - 3:23 pm
Democracy, even as pioneered by the ancient Greeks, is about the art of argument. As soon as you start to use violence, you have lost the argument, like the guy who throws the first punch.
Certainly in my view, if a government feels the need to use deadly force against its own people, then it has already lost any legitimacy.
Similarly, peaceful protest should be perfectly acceptable but, again, if violence is used then it would be legitimate to control that by use of proportionate force. There is of course a rather blurred line between a violent crowd and one that’s just very rowdy, – the key word here is “proportionate”.
#4 by Malc on February 26, 2011 - 3:54 pm
I think that captures the problem. What if you are the state, and the protesters, in your parlance, “throw the first punch”? What lengths can you go to to protect the state from that violent protest?
I’m thinking particularly about Libya here – if the protesters were the ones who resorted to violence first (and, granted, that is a big IF, especially given the nature of Gadaffi’s regime) then is the government’s resort to violence to protect itself legitimate?
#5 by Richard on February 26, 2011 - 4:16 pm
The perennial problem of where to draw the line on a sliding scale. I think it would be considered legitimate for the government to protect itself using less or equal force to what is being used against it.
However, I think it highly unlikely in this case that the protesters were the first to use anti-aircraft munitions and mortars.
#6 by Malc on February 26, 2011 - 4:28 pm
Of course, as you say, protesters were not the ones who started using the latter.
But here’s the theoretical problem: if, as Weber argues, it is the state that has the monopoly over the legitimate use of force, then surely the acts of protesters are ILLEGITIMATE and thus the state should be able to take the action it deems appropriate to maintain its position?
Of course, there is the question of proportionality. I’m not sure the “less or equal force to” thing works though. If you are under attack, you respond with enough force to win the battle comfortably – you don’t leave it as an open battle. But the difficulty is, if the state exists to represent and protect its people, then how do we square the circle when the people are the aggressors against the state?
#7 by Richard on February 27, 2011 - 1:09 am
I’m sorry, I didn’t express myself clearly there. When I said “less or equal”, I meant that, for example, if the police/army came under attack from protesters with stones/sticks, they would be quite within their right to reply with non-lethal force, but not with live rounds (and of course vice-versa).
When people are the aggressors however, they are no longer peaceful protesters, and it is their responsibility when taking that step to accept that their violence will be met with violence. As I said, the line between rowdy demonstration and violence can be difficult to pinpoint, but the line between lethal force and non-lethal force is certainly not.
All this depends on a balance, a sense of fairness, and a covenant between government and its people. As Indy says below, none of these exist in a totalitarian state like Gadaffi’s Libya, so really all bets are off.
I haven’t studied Weber’s writings, but I strongly suspect that they refer and apply to the democratic model.
#8 by Indy on February 26, 2011 - 8:43 pm
Maybe I am being really simplistic but I don’t think Gadaffi’s regime has any legitimacy because he is an unelected dictator (not to mention a raving madman). Perhaps a better question would be why did so many western governments choose to give the Libyan regime legitimacy and just how much are they panicking about that now?
#9 by Malc on February 26, 2011 - 8:48 pm
I accept that. And I think we can question whether Weber’s analysis applies to non-democratic regimes.
However, I suppose we can use the standard that Western governments, not to mention the UN, World Bank and IMF all recognised and did business with Gaddafi’s regime, thereby tacitly accepting his legitimacy to speak for the country. Which is a different standard to the one I was using, but perhaps conveys legitimacy nonetheless.
However, I absolutely agree – why did they do that? And are they still sure it was a good idea now? Is that why they’ve been so quick to support the protests?
#10 by Indy on February 27, 2011 - 7:19 pm
It’s fairly obvious why they did it. Stability. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t and all that. Plus a fear that dislodging dictatorships in Muslim countries would open the door to fundamentalists. I think they are probably crapping themselves now because there is no way of even predicting far less controlling what happens next.
#11 by Malc on February 28, 2011 - 8:15 am
That’s true – for example, the US pushed for democratic elections in Palestine, and when Hamas won, they decided they wouldn’t talk to them. Often times in a democracy, sometimes someone else wins – if they are fundamentalists, we have to deal with it. If we really believe in democracy, that is.
#12 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on February 26, 2011 - 9:24 pm
Edmund Burke
People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.
Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.
Malcolm X,
#13 by douglas clark on February 27, 2011 - 1:46 am
Malc:
You said:
Well, here’s mine. And they too are a bit randomised.
I think that nation states only have legitimacy through submission. It can be through submission to the divine right of kings or gods or particularily charismatic leaders, but they all to have a heirarchy implicit in them. It has always seemed to me that democracy was the orphan child to that idea. Yet, for whatever reasons, it appears to revert to previous models, surrender to them even. George Bush and GW Bush is a kingdom in all but name. Similar attempts were made with the Kennedys.
On the – always – lesser scale of the UK copying it’s new found big brother, there have been numerous examples of sons and daughters of politicians being shoo ins after their parents left office. It is this form of ‘legacy’ democracy that I find profoundly wrong. If we intend to regenerate ourselves through democratic institutions there should be at least a one generational skip before any one family is allowed to be re-elected.
There will be a howl against this idea – it will be argued that it is anti-democratic – but it is wrong that the highest places in our democracy should be within the ‘grace and favour’ of sitting MP’s. It is worth recalling that it is they who have power and that we have none.
#14 by Malc on February 28, 2011 - 8:18 am
Thing is – if an MP’s son/ daughter is standing in an election to replace them, there is already a limit on their ability to get elected: if we don’t like the idea, we can vote for someone else. So yeah, I’d be against the idea – it would be, in my view, undemocratic.
#15 by Douglas McLellan on February 27, 2011 - 2:13 am
Its late and I have had a few drinks so if this response makes no sense then I am sorry.
You have written an interesting piece here but I have to disagree with you, as Max Weber argued: monopoly of power has to be legitimised through normalisation in society. Given that society in Egypt, Libya and Tunisa de-legismised the government, there can be no monopoly of power and therefore the use of violence is not legitimate.
Also I disagree with the comparisons between the UK and those protests we see now. Even if I disagreed with the government now I know that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that there are many checks on its power and decision making processes. There are other elections that influence decision making, there is the media, there are legitimate campaigning methods and, ultimately, there is fear of losing power that makes the government of the day act and react to the feedback it gets.
And you have fallen into the trap of thinking the Lib Dems are the government – it was only the Lib Dems that have performed a 180 degree turn. So the government itself cannot be accused of doing one thing and not the other over fees. The fear of lose of power was only being felt by a small part of the government. However, the forest sell-off was being felt by the majority of the government which is why the policy has changed. Media pressure and even the Supreme Court all have a legitimate role in defending people against the power of the state. And ultimately we will have elections to change the government.
So when is it legitimate for a people to use violence against the state? Certainly not when there are democratic and legitimate legal options available. Also certainly not when there is still a high percentage or majority of public support for the government. Even with the Lib Dems being hated the government is still more popular than the opposition. The riots last year have no source of legitimacy so the comparison with what is happening in Africa is not valid.
But, when the people do not have democracy, when the state looses popular support for its rule and certainly when the state uses violence against peaceful protest, then the state not only loses its monopoly on violence, it loses its legitimacy to use it.
#16 by Malc on February 28, 2011 - 8:25 am
I think I conceded your first point (on legitimacy being based on normalisation) to someone earlier. But for sure, Weber’s analysis works better with democratic regimes.
And I’ve also conceded the point that the comparison between the UK protests and those in North Africa isn’t good. But it was simply to look at government reaction to public demonstrations/ violence.
But your latter point is what I was looking for out of the discussion, so thanks!
#17 by Douglas McLellan on February 28, 2011 - 1:14 pm
At least I got there in the end!
#18 by Neil on February 27, 2011 - 9:10 am
I think the issue you’re having squaring things is coming from the interpretation you’re giving to what Weber meant by legitimate. My reading is that when he used it, he wasn’t applying any positive or negative moral connotations to it but was simply saying that when a set of institutions is able to create a monopoly on the use of force in a territory (which could just as easily be considered a judicial system as a military), then they become a state and take on legitimacy, regardless of how morally bankrupt their actions may be. They key factor is the monopoly on force.
In the case of Libya, the state institutions have lost their monopoly on the use of force and therefore in Weberian terms the country is in anarchy rather than having a state. Whether that’s a good or bad thing doesn’t come into it.
That said I personally don’t think his definition of a state has ever been an appropriate one. How do you square it with PMCs today or mercenaries in previous ages having the ability to use force? A single criminal using violence in a territory doesn’t make that territory anarchic, so where is the tipping point at which people outside the state institutions being able to use force changes a territory from being a state into being anarchic? There’s more to statehood than Weber’s bare bones definition.
#19 by Malc on February 28, 2011 - 8:30 am
Ah, so your reading of Weber is different to other comments above Neil? In other words, its not the state that has the monopoly over the use of violence, just a group of folks who get together and can force their way into power – who can then BECOME the state?
That’s also interesting – and yes, I agree there’s more to statehood than this. I’d argue that Libya HAS descended into anarchy, whether we use Weber’s analysis anyway. But yes – there’s lots missing from Weber’s analysis as well.
#20 by Observer on February 27, 2011 - 10:37 am
You can’t compare policing student protesters with what is happening in Libya. The student protesters are representing their interests on a specific issue, & there are quite a lot of people who don’t actually agree with them.
The people in Libya are trying to overthrow a tyrant. They are engaged in a struggle to claim rights which people in this country take for granted.
It is because we have those rights that it is perfectly legitimate for the state to use force to maintain the peace. There are things the Police do which I disagree with – kettling for example – but these are operational issues, in principle they have the duty to ensure that protests are carried out legitimately & peacefully. That is why violence is never justified as we have the right to protest, we do not need to seize it by force.
In Libya the situation is altogether different.
#21 by Malc on February 28, 2011 - 8:33 am
Yeah – I know. The comparison wasn’t supposed to be between the two cases of why they were protesting, but rather government reactions to those protests that were comparable in my mind. But I absolutely accept that it isn’t a terrific comparison.
But the latter part is, again, what I was going for – the UK state has legitimacy to maintain the peace by using force, that’s fine. But in Libya – the “altogether different” situation – how much legitimacy to use violence to restore order does the state have?
Pingback: Around the world in 50 Scottish blogs – Scottish Roundup
#22 by Douglas McLellan on February 28, 2011 - 1:27 pm
I think that, ultimately, the state only has the legitimacy bestowed upon it by the acquiescence of its population. In places like Libya, Egypt and Tunisia and others, there has been a historical, perhaps tribal/custom, deference given to those in power.
The challenge to legitimacy then comes from trying to assess how many people no longer acquiesce to the status quo, if and when their voices are heard. Also in this assessment will be (or at least should be) what level of force will be accepted by the population in dealing with those who are protesting (sometimes this will be linked to the violence of the protestors). So if a minority of people use violent protest about an issue the vast majority dont agree with then the state will have greater legitimacy to use more force. Correspondingly, if a very large number of people protest peacefully with the agreement of even more than any violent response from the state will mean that its legitimacy to use that force will be called into question.
This means that there are a large number of variables that come into play when considering the states monopoly on the use of violence.
#23 by Julie on March 1, 2011 - 1:25 am
I can’t remember who it was that said that democracy is a bloodless way of finding out who is the strongest. Being in the majority and in government does not mean you are right; being in the minority does not mean you are wrong. Someone else whose name I can’t remember said that the Westminster system was ‘dictatorship tempered by assassination’. I think sometimes that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is one of degree rather than kind. That said, I would much rather live in a democracy. Good question, Malc.