Questions: Political Authority and Sources of Legitimacy

Question 1

A stable autocratic government has ruled for generations, consistently protecting citizens' rights and delivering just outcomes. However, citizens never consented to its authority. According to consent theory, is this government politically legitimate?

• A. Yes — a government that actually protects rights fulfills the purpose of political authority, which is what matters
• B. No — consent theory holds that authority is only legitimate if the governed have agreed to it; just outcomes cannot substitute for consent
• C. Partially — the government has de facto legitimacy through effective rule but lacks de jure legitimacy
• D. Yes — generations of continued residence implies tacit consent, even without explicit agreement

Answer: (B)

On consent theory (Locke's version), political authority is legitimate only when the governed have agreed to it. A just autocracy — however well-governed — lacks this foundation. Consent theory connects authority directly to individual autonomy: rules you haven't agreed to violate your freedom regardless of their content. Note that option A describes a 'justice of outcomes' criterion, which is a different theory that would indeed legitimate the autocracy. The theories give genuinely different answers because they ground legitimacy in different things.

Question 2

A democratic majority consistently votes to remove legal protections from a religious minority, stripping them of civil rights while following all proper democratic procedures. Which theory of legitimacy is most challenged by this scenario?

• A. Tradition-based legitimacy, because democracy is a modern institution without the historical durability that tradition requires
• B. Democratic procedural legitimacy, because the scenario shows that formally correct procedures can produce unjust outcomes affecting minorities
• C. Consent theory, because the minority never consented to being subject to majority rule
• D. Justice-of-outcomes theory, which would straightforwardly condemn this as illegitimate

Answer: (B)

Democratic proceduralism grounds legitimacy in fair procedures that give all citizens equal standing — but this scenario follows the procedures while systematically harming a minority. This is the characteristic failure of democratic proceduralism: a procedurally correct democracy that consistently oppresses minorities may score poorly on justice-of-outcomes criteria while being formally 'legitimate' on procedural grounds. The scenario doesn't particularly challenge consent theory (the minority may have consented to majority rule in general) or tradition (the question is about outcomes, not historical continuity). It most sharply tests whether procedure alone is sufficient for legitimacy.

Question 3

A government can be effective — fully capable of enforcing its commands and maintaining order — without being politically legitimate.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

True. This distinction — between effectiveness and legitimacy — is foundational to political philosophy. A government's power (its ability to coerce) and its right to command (its legitimacy) are logically independent. A dictator who maintains order through fear is effective but may lack any of the properties that various theories require for legitimacy: consent of the governed, just procedures, just outcomes, or traditional authority. Conversely, a legitimate government that loses control of its territory retains legitimacy even as its effectiveness wanes. Tyranny is characterized precisely by effectiveness without legitimacy.

Question 4

According to social contract theorists like Locke, an individual who remains in a country and benefits from its institutions has consented to that government's authority in the same meaningful way as explicit contractual consent.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

False — and this is a major objection to tacit consent theories. The claim that 'remaining counts as consenting' is problematic because true consent requires a genuine ability to choose otherwise. When leaving a country is costly (financially, culturally, linguistically), staying cannot be freely distinguished from resignation or lack of alternatives. Hume made this objection classically: telling a poor man he has consented by staying is like telling someone they consented to a sea voyage by not jumping overboard. Tacit consent is therefore a much weaker form of authorization than explicit agreement, and whether it grounds the same obligations is contested.

Question 5

Why does the source of political legitimacy matter for questions about civil disobedience and the duty to obey unjust laws?

Model answer: The source of legitimacy determines the conditions under which it can be withdrawn or defied. On consent theory, authority is legitimate only while it protects natural rights; a government that violates those rights forfeits its claim to obedience, justifying resistance. On democratic proceduralism, a law passed through fair procedures may be unjust yet still obligatory — but systematic procedural unfairness could dissolve that obligation. On justice-of-outcomes theory, unjust laws lack legitimacy by definition, and disobedience is potentially always justified. Different legitimacy theories draw the line between legitimate authority and tyranny in different places, which directly determines when civil disobedience, resistance, or revolution is justified.

This is the practical payoff of legitimacy theory: it is not merely academic. The source you identify determines your conclusion about edge cases — minority oppression by democratic majorities, unjust but procedurally correct laws, effective but non-consensual governments. Each theory draws the obligatory/non-obligatory line differently. Understanding this is prerequisite to evaluating arguments for civil disobedience (MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail), revolution (Locke on resistance to tyranny), and international political authority (who has the right to intervene in another state's affairs).