The Importance Of Norms And Legitimacy For International Politics
Both norms and legitimacy are seen to be quintessential factors when it comes to international politics and wanting to maintain order. As norm is a term which comes from a political science background it can be hard to define due to the wide scope of political, cultural and behavioural factors which they encompass, but we can still gain a rough definition. David Henderson raises the idea that within the arena of social sciences norms may be identified as rules or a “set of behaviours” which can be ‘prescribed or proscribed’ to a population (Henderson, 2012). If we look throughout the world in the current period, we would be able to find Henderson’s idea raised everywhere, from Western Liberal Democratic theory to the current crisis in the Middle East in regards to the rapid rise of the Islamic State.
Moreover, the term legitimacy in political science is understood to be the belief that a leader or an institution has the right to govern, it’s the right to hold privileges and claims against others (e. g. , citizens, other states) and to exercise your authority within that domain. If you are legitimate, you can rightfully ask people (citizens of your country) to do or act in due respect to certain things such as rules and they will have a moral obligation to follow your demand. Something or someone is thought to have legitimacy over others if it bears certain features. Tom Tyler says that if authorities “are not viewed as legitimate, social regulation is more difficult and costly” (Tyler 2001).
Although norms and legitimacy are typically seen to be contributing to international politics positively, it does not mean the concepts are completely robust and free from critique. To know if norms and legitimacy are important and how they produce or shape international political outcomes, analysing, comparing and critiquing is essential.
Norms are a prominent feature throughout international politics in both a positive and negative way. The term norms tend to include factors such as religious norms and respecting different religions, as well as norms such as not using violence to solve issues. In some cases, having different norms can cause conflict as some groups believe that this ruins the consensus of the land as there is too much diversity in them. By believing that numerous norms are not beneficial, and wanting to create change, some groups use violence which ultimately has a negative effect on the wider political system. ‘IS’ is a formation of Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, who formed under the common interests of the Sharia law. Which is the law of Islamic countries but they take their religious norms out of context to cause harm to others, they are seen to be anti-western sentiments as they want to enforce their way of living (their norms) onto others and use violence as a way to achieve it. In regards to Henderson’s definition, IS have negatively used a set of behaviours to try and establish their legitimacy as a powerful group, by taking norms out of context in this case cause international conflict which harms the peace of the international system (The Economist, 2014). The need to maintain international norms is key if we want the international system to not be in constant conflict, but due to some groups not wanting to reach consensus, violence is used in countries such as Syria as well as elsewhere in the world. IS, seem to have this extreme idea of exclusiveness, in which only Sunni Muslims are tolerated while many Shia Muslims, Christians and Zoroastrians have been massacred in Syria. We can see a religious adaptation of Henderson’s ‘prescribed norms’ being applied within the Islamic State (The Economist, 2014) if you are not one of them then they do not want you there. Due to the gross mistreatment of certain religious sects within the region of Syria and places such as Iraq, we can begin to understand how clashing norms are of critical significance within the global political arena.
From a constructivist viewpoint, larger entities such as states or even smaller ones like groups should not logically want to self-ascribe themselves as violators of human rights or internalise negative connotations if they want to have legitimacy as a collective group in the international political system. To achieve legitimacy, you should be following norms rather than breaking them has it is damaging to the image and is contra to states self-interest. Therefore it most definitely makes sense to adhere to international norms rather than being a tyrant to have power and legitimacy.
Legitimacy can come from different sources, but for the past few hundred years, the two most important sources have typically been considered to be the rule of law and the consent of the people of the land. Sometimes these forms of legitimacy can conflict - for example, on 15 November, the Iranian government, announced a 200 per cent increase in fuel prices – a redistributive measure designed to provide cash transfers to the population. Which was supported by both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani (Vakil, 2019). Instantly, the citizens of Iran took to the streets to protest and show their discontent with this policy move which does not benefit the average citizen in the slightest. As a result over the following few days protests spread throughout many public places such as local streets and bazaars and public institutions including universities across numerous towns and cities.
Following the protests, there was a weeklong internet blackout and a brutal crackdown that has left at least 200 people dead and 7,000 arrested (Vakil, 2019). The protests started with the initial argument that fuel prices shouldn't increase that much, and then, as a result, the public started to also protest against the government as a whole and their lack of accountability and corruption as political leaders. These protests are one of many reminders in the past 60 years of the shattered social contract between the state of Iran and their people. By going against the consent of the civilians, Iran has left itself in a compromised state which does not benefit them in the slightest. If these issues are not addressed now, they will continue to resurface and ruin the legitimacy of the state even further.
Additionally, during the American Revolution, the British parliament made clear that the law stated it had the right to impose any taxes it liked on other countries and that they would have to pay. While the Americans put forward the point that the British government could not do so to them without their consent, meaning they did not have to pay against their will regardless of what Britain expected as they were abiding by their rules. Both nations were valid in respect to their laws, and it took a war to determine which one should prevail. When situations like this occur, the deadlock can be broken by the intervention of a third party, such as a monarch or a constitutional court, for example, the queen of England. Ultimately, a legitimate government is simply one which people think is legitimate. If the people do not agree with those in power to have the right to govern, they will be seen to be less legitimate in international political standings as they cannot give the people what they want.
Norms have indirectly influenced international politics tremendously, by constraining the agent, state or the nation's behaviour through a framework of norms. They provide a shared understanding about appropriate and legitimate behaviour, by having expectations set in place of appropriate behaviour it inhibits actions which will not be approved by the international political system. For example, by limiting the range of possibilities for political actions globally, no one nation is too powerful in comparison to the rest. Especially when it is in regards to actions such as trading, and the organisation of political economy as highlighted by Sharman (Sharman, 2009).
In many cases, norms have been influential in the political system as they have arisen from the mistakes which have been made, for example, the lack of human intervention when it comes to issues such as international poverty. Nagel believes that the path from anarchy to justice must go through injustice to see some sort of change. Global justice will expand only through developments that first increase the injustice of the world by introducing effective but illegitimate institutions to which the standards of justice apply, standards by which we may hope they will eventually be transformed (Nagel, 2005). As a result of the norm of helping those who need help, a serious attempt has been made to strengthen the international human rights regime, to develop a doctrine of humanitarian intervention, and, more generally, to establish the individual as an international actor (Brown and Ainley, 2009). Therefore norms do have a significant influence on international politics in regards to advocating for positive change and shaping the outcomes of the international political system.
Additionally, legitimacy is a device of social control and that the lack of legitimacy imposes heavy costs on the controllers. Legitimacy is important for all regimes no matter how big or small, as it sustains political stability. Without having legitimacy you will not have enough power to impact international political outcomes. It establishes the reasonableness of a regime and provides a reason for the regime to exist. That is why Weber points out that regime must arouse legitimacy belief of the people if they tend to maintain their rule (Weber, 1997). Max Weber stated that ‘‘the generally observable need of any power, or even advantage of life, to justify itself,’’. Without having legitimacy countries can not justify the actions they take, according to Weber. If a country does not have proper legitimate power, they will not be able to shape the international political system positively as their actions will not be as influential in comparison to those who are legitimately stable.
David Beetham said ‘‘justification’’ (that is, legitimacy) as one response to the inherently contested nature of political power. ‘‘Because it is so problematical, societies will seek to subject it to justifiable rules, and the powerful themselves will seek to secure consent to their power from at least the most important among their subordinates (Beetham, 1991). ’’ This means that, due to how complex societies are, legitimate rules are needed to control how things run and the powerful actors will achieve that by seeking approval from their people and those other powerful actors surrounding them. Therefore legitimacy and social control which comes of it, are needed to sustain political stability in the wider international system.
Both norms and legitimacy have their positives and negatives. Norms such as trading tend to keep society in order as countries are receiving and trading their goods which benefit their people and economy, but if they are broken there are repercussions. Sanctions and embargoes are political trade tools, mainly put in place by the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) (Gov, 2016). If countries supposedly decide they no longer want to trade with a certain country, they cannot just end the trade deal. There are rules and agreements in place which ultimately are there to keep the peace between every country. The biggest benefits of having international norms is the peace and cohesiveness it brings to the nations as you know you are able to work together to make the world a better and safer place.
On the other hand, a downfall of norms is that what is seen to be ‘normal’ at the time does not mean that it is right. In the past child marriage was a common occurrence and classed as a norm, and still is in some countries today even though as a collective group of knowledgable nations we know it is wrong and it should be stopped. 76% of girls in Niger are married before their 18th birthday and 28% are married before the age of 15. Every year, 12 million girls marry before the age of 18 worldwide. Child marriage happens across countries, cultures and regions (Girls not Brides). According to UNICEF, Niger has the highest prevalence rate of child marriage in the world and the 14th highest absolute number of child brides – 676,000. Just because something is classed as a norm does not mean that it is right. If other countries have improved their laws on issues such as child marriage, why are they not enforcing countries such as Niger to do so as well? Child marriages violate human right laws internationally, but still in some countries as it is a norm to them they let it happen. A major flaw of a norm is, just because it is a norm doesn't mean that it is right and just because it is a norm somewhere, doesn't mean it is everywhere.
When it comes to legitimacy, it is something that is hard to achieve, but once you do you have the power to be influential in international politics. Legitimacy often increases a leaders effectiveness, they become a strong role model with a sense of trust and vision. Margaret Thatcher worked endlessly to establish her legitimacy alongside reestablishing Britain’s. When Thatcher first came to power, Britain was known as the “sick man of Europe”, Lady Virginia Bottomley stated that “Through her leadership and personal conviction she restored our confidence, self-belief and entrepreneurial spirit. ” Thatcher’s decision to deregulate the London Stock Exchange in 1986, which would lead the city to the forefront of world finance was arguably one of her best political moves. At the start of 2010, the financial sector blossomed and had an estimated worth of £125 billion and as a result London still retains a strong reputation in the world of finance. As a result of Thatcher and her establishing legitimacy, Britain thrived and regained their title of being powerful. Without legitimacy, you are seen to be weak, but when you have it, not only are you one to fear but you are one that other countries aspire to be like.
Sadly, not all forms of legitimacy are correct, some are established through forms of violence. They take over the nation and instead of affecting the political system positively they do it negatively hence why they are called a negative legitimacy. In a negative legitimacy, people sadly conform to the rules to prevent undefined negative repercussions which happen as a result of failure to conform. An occupational force or a military dictatorship operates in this way, a state whose legitimacy is negative is said to operate based on violence, terror and coercion. “As the taxi got closer, clouds of smoke filled the air. The regime’s planes had hit our street. Our neighbour’s roof had collapsed on to ours. There were ambulances everywhere, and people running around carrying the dead and the injured (The Guardian, 2017)”. This extract shows that in places such as Syria, negative legitimacy is used against innocent civilians by ISIS to take over the nation to show that they are in charge. It has lead to the death of hundreds and thousands, all to prove a political point. By having two sides of legitimacy, it proves that there is a flaw in the concept and that it is most definitely negative legitimacy.
Even though norms and legitimacy serve their parts in the international system, their influence isn't always as strong as it should be. Not every norm is influential as there are still groups and governments who decide not to follow what everyone else generally does. World hunger is most definitely a pressing topic globally, a lot of countries support their citizens by having benefits in place to prevent it, but according to FAO estimates in 'The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, 2019' report, 194. 4 million people are undernourished in India. By this measure, 14. 5% of the population is undernourished in India (India Food Banking Network). It is most definitely agreed that poverty and living in hunger is not a norm, that is not how we should live, but yet in many places of the world it still occurs. This clearly shows that not every norm is followed internationally, meaning that not all norms are influential as they set out to be.
On the other hand, no matter if you have positive or negative legitimacy you will always be influential to a degree. Countries which do not have positively legitimate governments still have people living under their laws and rules of the regime as they are still in charge with their negative legitimacy. No matter how you achieve your legitimacy, if you have it, you have the strength to rule over those who live under the regime. This is ultimately seen to be bad since it allows groups such as ISIS to continue their rule by using terror as a tool. Influence is always going to come hand in hand with legitimacy even if it is not what the people want.
Norms and legitimacy are both important and influential factors when it comes to the international political system, without norms we would not have a framework of rules to work with as an international system and without legitimacy, anyone could try to come into power without actually being suitable for the role. Granted, both do have faults as does any other concept, but they do both bring a lot of benefits to the political system. Norms tend to change over time, as do groups and leaders of legitimate parties, but this does not mean that they were previously wrong. What makes norms and legitimacy important is how they adapt over time when as a collective group of people we change and have new information and mindsets to follow.
