Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Dissent and Legitimacy

  • EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 22, 2022
Moral Philosophy and Politics
From the journal Moral Philosophy and Politics Volume 10 Issue 1

Abstract

An often overlooked tension in liberal theory turns on its commitment to procedural accounts of legitimacy on the one hand, and to the robust protection of the right of citizens to dissent on the other. To the extent that one evaluates legitimate decision-making on the basis of the procedures that bear on it, determining how extra-procedural expressions of dissent fit into the picture becomes a complex undertaking. This is especially true if one accepts that protecting extra-procedural expressions of dissent is itself foundational to the overall legitimacy of the state. My aim in this paper is to explore some of the implications that follow from this tension. The paper proceeds in two parts. In the first part, I review the political grounds that support a protection on dissent. By drawing on its republican foundations, I argue that the functional role that the right to dissent serves in complex political communities is intimately connected to concerns over legitimacy. I claim that for the right to perform its function successfully, protections must be placed on both procedural and extra-procedural forms of dissent. The second part of the paper issues a direct challenge to procedural accounts of legitimacy. If a protection on citizen dissent is vital to legitimating government action, and if that protection necessarily extends to both procedural and extra-procedural forms of dissent, it follows that legitimacy cannot be captured by procedure alone—even procedures that secure the fair and equal participation by all affected parties.

Keywords: legitimacy; dissent; proceduralism; democratic decision-making
Corresponding author: Geoffrey D. Callaghan, Department of Political Science, University of Windsor, Chrysler Hall North (room 1141) 3A9, 401 Sunset Ave, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada, E-mail:

References

Alvarez, R. M., D. R. Kiewiet, and L. Nunez. 2019. “A Taxonomy of Protest Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science 21 (1): 135–54.10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-120425Search in Google Scholar

Amos, C., G. Holmes, and D. Strutton. 2008. “Exploring the Relation Between Celebrity Endorser Effects and Advertising Effectiveness.” International Journal of Marketing 27 (2): 209–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2008.11073052.Search in Google Scholar

Arneson, R. 2003. “Debate: Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1): 122–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00170.Search in Google Scholar

Blau, B. M., T. J. Brough, and D. W. Thomas. 2013. “Corporate Lobbying, Political Connections, and the Bailout of Banks.” Journal of Banking & Finance 37 (8): 3007–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.04.005.Search in Google Scholar

Burke, E. 1975. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol.” In Edmund Burke on Government, Politics and Society, edited by B. W. Hill. Glasgow: Fontana.Search in Google Scholar

Callaghan, G. D. 2019. “What is Dissent?” Res Publica 25 (3): 373–86.10.1007/s11158-018-9405-6Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, S., P. Chidester, J. Bell, and J. Royer. 2004. “Remote Control: How Mass Media Delegitimize Rioting as Social Protest.” Race, Gender & Class 11 (1): 158–76.Search in Google Scholar

Chappell, Z. 2012. Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-26544-9Search in Google Scholar

Christiano, T. 1996. The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Christiano, T. 2004. “The Authority of Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (3): 266–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00200.x.Search in Google Scholar

Clawson, D., A. Neustadtl, and M. Weller. 1998. Dollars and Votes. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 2002. “Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.” In Philosophy and Democracy, edited by T. Christiano. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195136593.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1999. “Reflections on Habermas on Democracy.” Ratio Juris 12 (4): 385–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00132.Search in Google Scholar

Della Porta, D., and O. Fillieule. 2004. “Policing Social Protest.” In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. Snow, S. Soule, and H. Kriesi, 217–41. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.1111/b.9780631226697.2003.00011.xSearch in Google Scholar

Delmas, C. 2018. A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190872199.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Elder, R. S., and A. Krishna. 2010. “The Effects of Advertising Copy on Sensory Thoughts and Perceived Taste.” Journal of Consumer Research 36 (5): 748–56. https://doi.org/10.1086/605327.Search in Google Scholar

Erskine, H. 1970. “The Polls: Freedom of Speech.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (3): 483–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/267823.Search in Google Scholar

Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fung, A. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fung, A. 2005. “Deliberation Before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy in an Unjust World.” Political Theory 33 (3): 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591704271990.Search in Google Scholar

Gregg, B. 2002. “Proceduralism Reconceived: Political Conflict Resolution Under Conditions of Moral Pluralism.” Theory and Society 31 (6): 741–76. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021335112103.10.1023/A:1021335112103Search in Google Scholar

Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Search in Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Oxford: Polity.10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hand, L. 1955. “The Right to Dissent.” The American Journal of Economics and Society 15 (1): 82.Search in Google Scholar

Johann, D., K. Kleinen-von Konigslow, S. Kritzinger, and K. Thomas. 2018. “Intra-Campaign Changes in Voting Preferences: The Impact of Media and Party Communication.” Political Communication 35 (2): 261–86, doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1339222.Search in Google Scholar

Kaiser, R. G. 2009. So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government. New York: Knopf.Search in Google Scholar

Kelleher Richter, B., K. Samphantharak, and J. F. Timmons. 2009. “Lobbying and Taxes.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00407.x.Search in Google Scholar

Landemore, H., N. Urbinati, and D. Veihoff. 2016. “Roundtable on Epistemic Democracy and Its Critics.” Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 28 (2): 137–70.10.1080/08913811.2016.1206744Search in Google Scholar

Leslie, L. M. 2017. The Right to Dissent: A Guide to International Law Obligations. Vancouver: Lawyer’s Rights Watch Canada.Search in Google Scholar

Loewy, A. H. 1989. “The Flag-Burning Case: Freedom of Speech When We Need It Most.” North Carolina Law Review 68 (1): 165–75.Search in Google Scholar

Mansbridge, J. J. 1990. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

McCurdy, P. 2012. “Social Movements, Protest and Mainstream Media.” Sociology Compass 6 (3): 244–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00448.x.Search in Google Scholar

McDonald Ladd, J. 2010. “The Role of Media Distrust in Partisan Voting.” Political Behavior 32 (4): 567–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9123-z.Search in Google Scholar

McGee, G. 1966. “The Right of Dissent.” Vietnam Perspectives 2 (2): 36–45.Search in Google Scholar

Mouffe, C. 1999. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?” Social Research 66 (3): 745–58.Search in Google Scholar

Nock, C. J. 1995. “On the Dissent Theory of Political Obligation.” Polity 28 (2): 141–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235198.Search in Google Scholar

Passavant, P. A. 2021. Policing Protest: The Post-Democratic State and the Figure of Black Insurrection. Durham: Duke University Press.10.1215/9781478013013Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. 2011. “The Instability of Freedom as Noninterference: The Case of Isiah Berlin.” Ethics 121 (4): 693–716. https://doi.org/10.1086/660694.Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. 2012. On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139017428Search in Google Scholar

Prosch, H. 1965. “Limits to the Moral Claim in Civil Disobedience.” Ethics 75 (2): 103–11. https://doi.org/10.1086/291530.Search in Google Scholar

Ratner, M., and M. Ratner Kunstler. 2011. Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in 21st Century America. New York: The New Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.4159/9780674042605Search in Google Scholar

Raz, J. 1995. Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198260691.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Search in Google Scholar

Schauer, F. 1983. “Free Speech and the Argument from Democracy.” NOMOS 25: 241–56.Search in Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. 1976. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Wall, S. 2007. “Democracy and Equality.” The Philosophical Quarterly 57 (228): 416–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.495.x.Search in Google Scholar

Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Young, I. M. 2001. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29 (5): 670–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029005004.Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2022-03-22
Published in Print: 2023-04-25

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. Institutions and Moral Demandingness
  4. Political Equality and Political Sufficiency
  5. Means Paternalism and the Problem of Indeterminacy
  6. Dissent and Legitimacy
  7. Individual Responsibility under Systemic Corruption: A Coercion-Based View
  8. Egalitarian Trade Justice
  9. Moral and Political Foundations: From Political Psychology to Political Realism
  10. ‘I’m Just Stating a Preference!’ Lookism in Online Dating Profiles
  11. Combining Philosophical and Democratic Capability Lists
  12. Climate Justice and the Duty of Restitution
https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2021-0073
Keywords for this article
legitimacy; dissent; proceduralism; democratic decision-making

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. Institutions and Moral Demandingness
  4. Political Equality and Political Sufficiency
  5. Means Paternalism and the Problem of Indeterminacy
  6. Dissent and Legitimacy
  7. Individual Responsibility under Systemic Corruption: A Coercion-Based View
  8. Egalitarian Trade Justice
  9. Moral and Political Foundations: From Political Psychology to Political Realism
  10. ‘I’m Just Stating a Preference!’ Lookism in Online Dating Profiles
  11. Combining Philosophical and Democratic Capability Lists
  12. Climate Justice and the Duty of Restitution
Downloaded on 16.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mopp-2021-0073/html
Scroll to top button