Authors: Nohlen
Summary: The about 2500 word entry establishes the historical change of the understanding of the term, distinguishes between norms and procedures as sources of legitimacy, and highlights German debates over what constitutes legitimacy during the Weimar Republic and since the 1970s. That the understanding of legitimate forms of government changed historically, the entry symbolizes by referring to the pairing of good and bad forms of government over time: monarchy vs tyrannis until the 18th century, republicanism vs. despotism since then, and in the 20th century democracy vs. totalitarianism/authoritarianism. For the Western civilizations, the understanding of what constitutes legitimate political action is on the one hand based on norms from the Roman-Greek tradition, Jewish-Christian sources, and Medieval legal traditions. These include the belief in the possibility for humans to understand the world order, the idea that individuals are born with basic rights, and the idea that a legal code is necessary to protect individual from societal interests. However, complementary to norms, legitimacy also rests on procedures perceived as legitimate (elections, separation of powers, majority rule, representation). The entry argues that while norms and procedures can be in conflict, only the intersection between the two allows political decisions to acquire legitimacy. Both during the Weimar Republic and in West Germany debates occurred over the relative importance of norms and procedures and the necessary limitations to majority rule. The entry summarizes the Weimar-debate between Max Weber and Carl Schmitt , which also focused on the relative importance of legitimacy vs. legality. The entry also refers to contributions to similar debates by party-state critics(Jaspers), arguments of limited participation of the people in the decision-making processes ( Habermas ), neo- conservative welfare-state critics, and majority-democracy skeptics in Western Germany. The entry ends with a call to study empirically and comparatively how legitimate forms and content of political action are perceived in Western democracies.