Encyclopedia Dramatica - Things to revert [en]

Battle of Sedan

2025-04-27T17:43:27Z

Juninull: Created page with "When your 'glorious empire' lasts about three seconds into a real fight. Once upon a time, in 1870, the French Empire, led by the walking L Napoleon himself, decided they could totally swing their baguettes at Prussia and not get annihilated. This was the '''Battle of Sedan''', otherwise known as the historical equivalent of slipping on a banana peel and breaking your spine. ==In the beginning== The French t..."

[[File:Battle_of_Sedan_Meme.png|thumb|300px|When your 'glorious empire' lasts about three seconds into a real fight.]] Once upon a time, in [[1870]], the [[French]] Empire, led by the walking L Napoleon himself, decided they could totally swing their baguettes at [[Prussia]] and not get annihilated. This was the '''Battle of Sedan''', otherwise known as the historical equivalent of slipping on a banana peel and breaking your spine.

==In the beginning==

The [[French]] thought they'd flex on Prussia, but forgot that their army was basically a cosplay convention compared to the Prussian Doom Machine. They wandered into Sedan like idiots and thought "Oui, zis is strategic!" Meanwhile, the Prussians surrounded them like a middle school dodgeball team targeting the weak kid.

By September 1st, 1870, [[Napoleon III]] was asking how to spell "surrender" in German. The French army got their asses kicked so hard that the soundwaves caused every wine bottle in France to shatter.

==French Copium and Anon==

French officers bravely attempted to retreat into rivers, forests, and their own asses. Anonymous historians agree: no amount of baguette-chucking or existential whining was saving them. Napoleon III personally surrendered like a true sigma male (on his knees, crying, and hoping Bismarck wouldn't take his wallet too).

Meanwhile, in Berlin, the Prussians were too busy victory dancing and updating their wiki pages to even bother mocking them properly.

==The AIDs Spreads to Paris==

Word of the catastrophic L reached Paris and, like true Frenchmen, they immediately staged a revolution. "You surrendered? TIME FOR A NEW GOVERNMENT!" became the national slogan.

They threw out Napoleon III and accidentally speedran France into the [[Third Republic]] and, eventually, their favorite pastimes: arguing, drinking wine, and LARPing about freedom.

===Quotes of Absolute Humiliation===

<center>{{morphquote|mqtest|background-color: white;|font-weight: bold; |The French army thought they were in a fencing duel. The Prussians brought a chainsaw.|- Every German war historian ever |France's strategy: Walk into the trap and hope Bismarck just forgets.|- Historian with a wine addiction |You can hear Napoleon III's ego collapsing from across the Rhine.|- A Prussian meme lord |Sedan: because "Hold my beer" is an official military tactic.|- Anonymous French survivor }}</center>
==The Fallout==

After Sedan, the Prussians pretty much Thanos-snapped the [[Second French Empire]] out of existence. Napoleon III became a full-time unemployed sad boy, Paris was about to have the [[Communard Furry Convention]] (also known as the Paris Commune), and Germany was basically founded in the Hall of Mirrors because why not humiliate France a little more.

{{quote|When you lose so badly they create a whole new country next door to mock you.|Everyone with a functioning brain}}

==External Links==

*[[Franco-Prussian War]]
* [[Napoleon III]]
* [[Otto von Bismarck]]
* [[Surrendercore Music (Genre)]]

{{historyseries}} [[Category:European Clown Shows]] [[Category:Military Failures]]

File:Battle of Sedan Meme.png

2025-04-27T17:42:13Z

Juninull:

Franco-Prussian War

2025-04-27T17:31:46Z

Juninull: Created page with "{{SmoothRainbow|PUSSIES}} <center><big>{{stub}}</big></center> Prussia giving France a complimentary slap into the 19th century. '''Franco-Prussian War''' is the historical event where France thought they could 1v1 Prussia and ended up getting absolutely dogwalked in public. It led to France taking the fattest L since they decided to invade Russia in winter and gave birth to Germany, who immediately star..."

{{SmoothRainbow|PUSSIES}}
<center><big>{{stub}}</big></center> 
[[Image:KaiserSlap.png|thumb|right|Prussia giving France a complimentary slap into the 19th century.]]
'''Franco-Prussian War''' is the historical event where [[France]] thought they could 1v1 [[Prussia]] and ended up getting absolutely [[buttsecks|dogwalked]] in public. It led to France taking the fattest L since they decided to invade Russia in winter and gave birth to [[Germany]], who immediately started side-eyeing Europe like a final boss.

==Prominent participants==
*[[Otto von Bismarck]] - The giga-brain who baited France into war with a few spicy edits to a telegram.
*[[Napoleon III]] - The French emperor who saw the bait, bit down like a piranha, and ragequit after losing his whole army at Sedan.
*[[Helmuth von Moltke]] - The Prussian nerd who turned military logistics into a cheat code.
*[[King Wilhelm I]] - Flexed so hard he became Emperor of Germany in a French palace (LMAO).

== Reasons why France got ratioed ==
[[File:Frenchscope.png|thumb|right|Historical photo of France trying to explain how "they almost won."]]
* Prussia had actual guns that worked, not cosplay muskets.
* Prussian generals used railroads and telegrams while France was still arguing about which wig to wear into battle.
* Bismarck out-memed the French by leaking the Ems Dispatch, causing France to declare war first like a bunch of NPCs.
* France literally had zero allies.
* Napoleon III forgot that good vibes alone don't win wars.

== Aftermath ==
* Prussia embarrassed France so badly that Paris started cosplaying as Fallout New Vegas during the Commune.
* Germany was born in the Hall of Mirrors like the ultimate petty move.
* France lost Alsace-Lorraine and started coping for the next 50 years.
* Germany became Europe's new Giga Chad while France went home to journal about it.

==See also==
*[[Seethe]]
*[[Cope]]
*[[Mald]]
*[[Napoleon Complex]]
*[[Germany]]

{{Politics}}
[[Category: Historical Humiliations]]

File:Frenchscope.png

2025-04-27T17:30:19Z

Juninull:

File:KaiserSlap.png

2025-04-27T17:25:43Z

Juninull:

Russification

2025-04-11T01:22:18Z

Juninull: Created page with "{{achtung| RUSSIAN MONGOLIANS?}} {{spoiler|{{Hover|школы в Польше учат только на русском, чтобы стереть местную культуру|SCHOOLS IN POLAND TEACH ONLY IN RUSSIAN TO ERASE LOCAL CULTURE}}}} {{Warzone}} {{breakingnews|RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES JUST BANNED UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE TEXTBOOKS IN SCHOOLS AS PART OF FULL RUSSIFICATION MODE!!!}} Image:SomeAIRepresentationofRussification.png|thumb|center..."

{{achtung| RUSSIAN MONGOLIANS?}}

{{spoiler|{{Hover|школы в Польше учат только на русском, чтобы стереть местную культуру|SCHOOLS IN POLAND TEACH ONLY IN RUSSIAN TO ERASE LOCAL CULTURE}}}}
{{Warzone}}
{{breakingnews|[[Russification of Ukraine|RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES JUST BANNED UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE TEXTBOOKS IN SCHOOLS AS PART OF FULL RUSSIFICATION MODE!!!]]}}
[[Image:SomeAIRepresentationofRussification.png|thumb|center|200px|Welcome to Russia, where *Russification* means your town, tongue, and textbooks just got renamed. (Brought to you by the Ministry of Assimilation and Historic Revision).]]
{{quote|the obliteration of national distinctions, and especially language distinctions, is a considerably more drawn-out process than the obliteration of class distinctions.|Nikita Khrushchev}}

{{frame|<youtube>MdYGQ7B0Vew</youtube>|margin=auto}}

[[Image:Krasta_Street_sign_in_Rēzekne.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Welcome to Latvia, where even your street signs get a KGB-approved translation. 'Krasta iela'? Sorry comrade, it's now also 'ул. Краста'—because reading in two alphabets builds character (and keeps you guessing what country you're actually in). Russification: brought to you by Cyrillic Colonialism™.]]

[[Image:Mother_Russia's_Policies.png|thumb|400px|Behold the two-headed bird of based imperial bloat, now proudly sponsored by Cheap Vodka™, Soviet Burger Co., and Ministry of Cultural Appropriation. Once a noble emblem of tsarist flex, it has now evolved into the ultimate heraldic shitpost, symbolizing all things stereotypically Russian—and possibly drunk.]]

Russification (aka "how to turn everyone into Great Value™ Russians) is the epic state-sponsored cosplay project where non-Russians are told to drop their native language, culture, and soul in exchange for a lifetime supply of vodka, Cyrillic, and tsar-worship. Whether you asked for it or not, if you were within breathing distance of the Russian Empire or the USSR, you were automatically enrolled in Mother Russia's Cultural Makeover Program™.

Back in the day, the czars and later the Red Mafia—sorry, Soviets—decided that the best way to unite the empire wasn't tolerance or respect, but good ol’ linguistic bulldozing and bureaucratic gaslighting. If you ran a school in Poland, spoke Tatar at home, or dared to write poetry in Ukrainian, surprise: now you’re teaching Pushkin, praising Peter the Great, and filling out forms in a language your grandma thinks is demonic chanting.

Politically, Russification means slapping a Russian in charge of your national government, even if he can’t find your country on a map. Culturally, it’s replacing your folk songs with balalaikas and pretending samovars are an upgrade. And if enough ethnic Russians move into your town, guess what? It's no longer "your" town. It's Mini-Moscow, population: everyone but you.

Now, some academic types like to split hairs with terms like Russification, Russianization, and Sovietization, as if it makes a difference whether you're being rebranded by an empire, a dictatorship, or a really enthusiastic culture club. But here’s the TL;DR: if you weren’t Russian, you were getting Russianed—one way or another.

And by the time the Soviet Union was collapsing like a drunk Cossack, non-Russians were still resisting the urge to slap on a ushanka and sing the national anthem. Turns out, decades of forced cultural assimilation doesn't actually erase identity. Who knew?

[[Image:RussificationButMakeItMythology.png|thumb|right|300px|“When You Just Wanted to Speak Latvian but the Tsar Sent a Whole Eagle” — In this beautifully passive-aggressive visual metaphor, a symbol of national identity (that poor barefoot maiden) gets dive-bombed by the majestic but aggressively condescending Russian double-headed eagle, here seen confiscating her language, literature, and probably her breakfast. Note the flying papers: likely a freshly banned grammar textbook in Estonian. Waves crash, thunder roars, and in the distance, you can hear someone whispering, “Now you learn Pushkin, да?”]]

==History==
[[Image:RussificationChurchRenovation.png|thumb|right|280px|“Now With 100% More Onion Domes” — This is what happens when Russification gets a construction permit. That pesky Baroque-Lithuanian-Catholic nonsense? Bulldozed. Why? Because Moscow says your architecture has too much Latin alphabet energy. Coming soon: a tasteful Orthodox church with triple domes, Cyrillic signage, and mandatory Dostoevsky readings during mass. Praise be to central planning.]]

Once upon a czarist hangover, the mighty Russian state had a vision: "What if everyone, and I mean everyone, was Russian?" Thus began the Great Cultural Reboot, also known as Russification, or as some call it, "Ctrl+C Russian, Ctrl+V Everywhere." The victims? A motley crew of Uralic tribes, Turkic speakers, Central Asian empires, and any unfortunate ethnicity that wasn't already chugging kvass and quoting Pushkin.

The Vepsians, Mordvins, Maris, and friends were just vibing in western Russia when Slavs came east with cultural colonization DLCs. The process was simple: give up your tongue or we'll rename your village and move in. It worked so well, even the Komi had no idea what hit them until the 18th century. By the 19th, they were speaking Russian fluently and regretting life choices.

After a little mishap called the Crimean War, Tsar Alexander II decided ethnic cleansing lite was the best medicine. Russification was the post-failure therapy. Nomads were pushed east, peasants were imported west, and the "Kyrgyz" (they meant Kazakhs, but cartography was hard) found themselves in China, probably asking for directions back to their steppe.

Forget your silly border fantasies. The Imperial playbook said: "You're not a country, you're a dialect." Russophilia was the cult, and the Imperial government had the Kool-Aid. Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalism was viewed like a software virus—something to patch out in the next imperial update.

1920s: Latin alphabets for everyone! 1930s: Wait, no. Cyrillic for all! Arabic, Latin, ancient scripts? Not Russian enough. Rewrite, rebrand, recode. Even the Quran couldn’t escape the alphabet swap. If it didn’t conform to Soviet Cyrillic policy, it was vaporware.

In the 1920s and 30s, the USSR tried out indigenization, also known as the "We Promise This Isn't Colonization" phase. Non-Russians were promoted. Local languages got their 15 minutes of fame. But behind the scenes, the main goal was to prevent pan-Islamism and pan-Turkism from patching together a competing operating system.

By the late 1930s, the vibe shifted. Nationalism = bad, Russian dominance = pogchamp. Stalin's purge update deleted regional leaders like they were browser cookies. Education went from "learn in your own tongue" to "better memorize Dostoevsky or else."

Entire ethnic groups got uninstalled and sent to Siberia or Central Asia, especially if someone sneezed near a German soldier. Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, and more got shuffled like a cursed Steam library.

From 1945 onwards, Russian was the "language of inter-ethnic friendship" – the friend who crashes on your couch and never leaves. Education? In Russian. TV? Russian. Books? Mostly Russian. Native tongues? Optional add-ons, frequently discontinued.

Khrushchev's idea of "rapprochement" meant, basically, "You will all blend into one glorious Soviet Smoothie." Brezhnev softened the tone, but the blender stayed on. By the 1970s, kids in urban areas learned Russian whether they liked it or not. Rural regions held out, but even they had to sing the anthem in Russian.

1980s: Soviet People™ Arrives

A new meta-ethnic identity was born: the Soviet People, whose language was Russian, whose TV was Russian, and whose ethnic identities were... uh, pending.

1989 Census: Congratulations, You Are Now Russian

By the fall of the USSR, millions of Ukrainians, Belarusians, Tatars, and others were basically Russian in language if not in paperwork. Assimilation was so aggressive, you could be born Tatar, speak only Russian, and still be asked to dance in traditional costume for a parade.

Post-Soviet Patch: Federation.exe
After 1991, things got even buggier. Indigenous languages were patched out with new bills. Native instruction hours dropped to "barely functional." In 2019, one Udmurt activist literally self-immolated over language laws. Indigenous languages? Endangered. Cultural memory? Actively deleted.

2022: Censuses Confirm Mass Alt-F4
The most recent Russian census reads like a death toll for minority identity: Chuvash? Down 25%. Udmurts? Down 30%. Mordvins and Komi-Permyaks? Game over.

Russification: Because One Language to Rule Them All Always Ends Well

==By country/region==
[[Image:PolandRussificationPatch1897.png|thumb|right|320px|“Language Update: Russian 1.0 Now Auto-Installed in Eastern Poland” — Behold, the imperial upgrade map where Tsarist Devs tried to patch Polish identity with mandatory Russian voice lines. This 1897 chart shows which districts got the full Cyrillic immersion experience and which resisted the firmware update. The darker the green, the deeper the Russification penetration. Not shown: secret Polish reboot files, underground dictionary caches, and grandma teaching conjugations in the attic.]]
[[Image:ForbiddenLithuanianBook1864.png|thumb|right|300px|“WARNING: Reading This Might Make You Lithuanian” — Straight from 1864 Vilnius, this bad boy was banned faster than a meme about the Tsar's bald spot. Why? Because it dared to use the Latin alphabet—aka the written form of heresy under the Russification Patch 2.0. The czarist overlords declared Cyrillic as the One True Font™ and started mass-producing “loyal” Lithuanian books that read like Google Translate's Slavic fever dream. Meanwhile, the knygnešiai (book smugglers) risked gulags just to sneak these alphabetic bangers across the Prussian border. Literacy never looked so illegal.]]

So, Russia rolled into the South Caucasus like an uninvited wedding guest in the 1800s, thanks to a couple of treaties with Iran (Gulistan and Turkmenchay—basically Persia rage-quit). By 1830, Baku and company were getting fresh Russian instruction whether they wanted it or not. Azeris weren’t thrilled until some enlightened dudes said, “Hey, what if we taught Russian AND Azeri?” Boom—first Russian-Azeri school, 1887. Cue hundreds more and even a women’s college before the Soviets stormed in with the patch notes.

[[Image:Operation Potato Alphabet- Smuggling Literacy Under the Tsar.png|thumb|A satirical vintage-style illustration mocking Tsarist-era Russification policies. In a dimly lit cellar, a sly Orthodox priest smuggles banned Lithuanian books printed in the Latin alphabet, disguising them in a sack labeled “POTATOES.” Behind him, a snoozing Tsarist officer dozes beneath warning signs like “CYRILLIC OR SIBERIA” and “THIS TEXT CONTAINS UNAPPROVED CHARACTERS.” Another reads: “READ RESPONSIBLY — MAY CAUSE NATIONAL AWAKENING.” The artwork parodies the absurdity of alphabet bans and cultural suppression under Russian imperial rule, portraying resistance through the subversive power of books.]]

Russians, Armenians, Azeris, and even your neighborhood Jewish grandpa spoke fluent Dostoevsky. By 1970, tens of thousands of Azeris were logging into Russian as their native language like it was the hot new MMO.

Russification here was an on-again, off-again toxic relationship from the 18th century until Soviet sunset. Brief break for Belarusization in the 1920s before Big Brother USSR said, “Nope, back to Russian.” And when Lukashenko took the wheel in 1994, he pressed the Russify button harder than ever. Goodbye Belarusian, hello Ministry of Nostalgia.

The Russification of Finland, aka sortokaudet (“times of getting steamrolled”), was an effort by the Russian Empire to turn Santa’s favorite country into a subfolder of Moscow. Finns weren’t having it, rebelled quietly, and eventually said, “Screw this, we’re independent” in 1917. Bonus: a famous painting even shows Mother Finland defending her laws from a double-headed eagle. Symbolism level: 100.

Post-WWII, the USSR said, “Hey, nice German city, shame if we renamed everything, expelled everyone, and forgot to maintain the castles.” They replaced the population, bulldozed the past, and called it Kaliningrad. Modern result? A Soviet Minecraft biome with ghost infrastructure and extra Cyrillic.

In 1885, a Russian ukaz said, “All your official business is now in Russian.” By 1944, Soviet occupation doubled down—Latvian cities became Russian language zones, whether Latvians liked it or not. National Communists tried to resist with language bills and cultural laws in the 1950s, but the Kremlin clapped back with purges and a bilingual school system that mostly forgot about the Latvian part. By the ‘60s, Russian class hours doubled, Latvian hours shrank, and Latvians needed to learn Russian just to get a dentist appointment.

By the ‘70s, even local workers had to speak Russian because if there was one Russian in the room, the meeting switched to his language. Equality.exe had stopped responding.

Lithuanians got hit with the no-Latin-script patch after the 1863 Uprising. Russian was the new black. Schools, government, even churches had to ditch their mother tongues. But the Lithuanians fought back with underground printing and knygnešiai (book smugglers), delivering Latin-alphabet contraband like literary rebels.

[[Image:PushkinSaysSoDealWithIt.png|thumb|right|250px|“Pushkin Approves This Message” — Nothing screams linguistic superiority like a state-sponsored bus stop poster quoting a dead poet to justify Russification. This classy street-level PSA basically says: “The Slavic-Russian language is so divine, it dunks on all of Europe. Deal with it.” Subtle? No. Effective? Also no. But hey, when you need cultural dominance AND curbside aesthetics, why not slap Pushkin on it and call it heritage. Coming soon: ‘Dostoevsky Declares All Other Alphabets Mid.’]]

Poles, meanwhile, got the full imperial nerf package: banned language, beatings in school, secret classes in grandma’s kitchen. By the early 1900s, Polish kids were fluent in whispering rebellion.

The Empire acquired Bessarabia and said, “Cool story, Moldovans. Now speak Russian.” Romanian was banned in schools, then churches, then life. Settlers came, Moldovans left, and by 1897, the ethnic ratio did a 180. By Soviet times, the language got Cyrillic’d, the culture got adjusted, and the past got memory-holed.

===Ukraine: From Valuev to Putin, a Legacy of ‘No Ukrainian Allowed’===
Starting with the Valuev Circular in 1863, Ukraine got told, “Your language doesn’t exist.” Plays, books, lectures in Ukrainian? Blocked. Soviet rule flipped briefly to korenizatsiya, then turbo-reversed. By the late USSR, many Ukrainians were Russian-speaking by state design. Even post-2014, in Crimea and Donbas, Putin brought back subtle (read: forced) Russification like it was vintage policy.

[[Image:ValuevLinguisticWarriorLetter.png.png|thumb|right|260px|“Dear Ukraine: Your Language Is a Myth” — Behold the original boss-level gatekeep, gaslight, girlboss letter—the Valuev Circular—written in majestic imperial chicken scratch. TL;DR: Ukrainian isn’t real, so stop printing it. Signed with extra smugness by Pyotr Valuev, the Russian Minister of ‘We Decide What Exists’. This parchment of pretension declared Ukrainian suitable only for ‘religious superstition’ and basically banned it in schools, books, and anywhere with a literate peasant. Still smells like censorship and cologne.]]

Want to write in your own alphabet? Tough. Want to speak your own language? Treasonous. Want to not be assimilated? There's a train to Siberia leaving in five.

 
 
[[Image:The Cat.gif|thumb|center|Ooh, then it was THAT much????]]

<center>Russification: Still Coming Soon to a Minority Near You</center>

===Roll the end credits...===
 
{{frame|<youtube>nc_H-bD2khc</youtube>|margin=auto}}

File:ValuevLinguisticWarriorLetter.png.png

2025-04-11T01:14:58Z

Juninull:

File:PushkinSaysSoDealWithIt.png

2025-04-11T01:11:10Z

Juninull:

File:Operation Potato Alphabet- Smuggling Literacy Under the Tsar.png

2025-04-11T01:04:11Z

Juninull:

File:ForbiddenLithuanianBook1864.png

2025-04-11T00:58:28Z

Juninull:

File:PolandRussificationPatch1897.png

2025-04-11T00:54:35Z

Juninull:

File:RussificationChurchRenovation.png

2025-04-11T00:32:52Z

Juninull:

File:RussificationButMakeItMythology.png

2025-04-11T00:25:24Z

Juninull:

File:Mother Russia's Policies.png

2025-04-11T00:20:26Z

Juninull:

File:Krasta Street sign in Rēzekne.jpg

2025-04-11T00:15:45Z

Juninull:

File:SomeAIRepresentationofRussification.png

2025-04-10T23:54:48Z

Juninull:

October Revolution

2025-03-21T05:19:57Z

Juninull: Created page with "{{Short description|Second of two 1917 revolutions in Russia}} {{Redirect|Red October||Red October (disambiguation)|and|October Revolution (disambiguation)|and|November Revolution (disambiguation)}} {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2025}} {{Infobox military conflict | conflict = October Revolution | partof = the Russian Revolution and the revolutions of 1917–1923 | image = After the capture of the Winter Palace 26 October 1917.jpg |..."

{{Short description|Second of two 1917 revolutions in Russia}}
{{Redirect|Red October||Red October (disambiguation)|and|October Revolution (disambiguation)|and|November Revolution (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2025}}
{{Infobox military conflict
| conflict = October Revolution
| partof = the [[Russian Revolution]] and the [[revolutions of 1917–1923]]
| image = After the capture of the Winter Palace 26 October 1917.jpg
| image_size = 300px
| caption = The [[Winter Palace]] of Petrograd, one day after the insurrection, 8 November
| date = {{OldStyleDateNY|7 November 1917|25 October}}
| place = [[Saint Petersburg|Petrograd]], [[Russian Republic]]
| result = {{ublist|Bolshevik victory}}
* End of [[dual power]]
* Dissolution of the [[Russian Provisional Government]]
* The [[Second All-Russian Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies' Soviets|Second Congress of Soviets]] proclaims itself as the supreme governing body of the country
* [[Kerensky–Krasnov uprising]] fails to retake the capital
* [[1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election]] held
* Beginning of the [[Russian Civil War]]
| combatant1 = {{ubl
| {{flagicon image|Socialist red flag.svg}} [[Bolsheviks]]
| {{flagicon image|Socialist red flag.svg}} [[Left Socialist-Revolutionaries]]
| {{flagicon image|Socialist red flag.svg}} [[Anarchism in Russia#October Revolution|Anarchists]] 
}}
| combatant2 = {{flagicon image|Flag of Russia.svg}} [[Russian Republic]]
| commander1 = {{ubl
| [[Vladimir Lenin]]
| [[Leon Trotsky]]
| [[Lev Kamenev]]
| [[Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko|Vladimir Ovseenko]]
| [[Pavel Dybenko]]
| [[Yakov Sverdlov]]
}}
| commander2 = {{ubl
| [[Alexander Kerensky]]
| [[Pyotr Krasnov]]
}}
| strength1 = {{ubli
| 10,000 Red sailors
| 20,000–30,000 Red Guard soldiers
| Unknown number of workers{{efn|50,000 workers passed a resolution in favour of Bolshevik demand for transfer of power to the [[soviets]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Head |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PYGNAgAAQBAJ&dq=october+revolution+50+000+workers&pg=PT83 |title=Evgeny Pashukanis: A Critical Reappraisal |date=12 September 2007 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-1353-0787-5}}{{page needed|date=December 2024}}</ref>{{Sfn|Shukman|1994|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ScabEAAAQBAJ&dq=october+revolution+50+000+workers&pg=PA21 21 The Workers: February–October 1917 ]}}}}
}}
| strength2 = {{ubli
| 500–1,000 volunteer soldiers
| 1,000 soldiers of the women's battalion
}}
| casualties1 = Few Red Guard soldiers wounded<ref>{{Cite web |date=9 November 2009 |title=Russian Revolution |url=https://www.history.com/topics/russia/russian-revolution |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230826013759/https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/russian-revolution |archive-date=26 August 2023 |website=HISTORY}}</ref>
| casualties2 = All imprisoned or deserted
}}
{{Campaignbox Russian Revolution}}
{{Campaignbox Russian Civil War}}
[[File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg|thumb|[[Red Guards (Russia)|Red Guard]] unit of the Vulkan factory in Petrograd, October 1917]]
[[File:Kustodiev The Bolshevik.jpg|thumb|''Bolshevik'' (1920) by [[Boris Kustodiev]]]]
[[File:Exterminists' Rise in Power in Russia.png|thumb|''[[The New York Times]]'' headline from 9 November 1917]]

The '''October Revolution''',{{Efn|{{langx|ru|Октябрьская революция|Oktyabrskaya revolyutsiya}}, {{IPA|ru|ɐkˈtʲabrʲskəjə rʲɪvɐˈlʲutsɨjə|IPA}}.}} also known as the '''Great October Socialist Revolution'''{{Efn|{{langx|ru|Великая Октябрьская социалистическая революция|Velikaya Oktyabrskaya sotsialisticheskaya revolyutsiya}}, {{IPA|ru|vʲɪˈlʲikəjə ɐkˈtʲabrʲskəjə sətsɨəlʲɪˈsʲtʲitɕɪskəjə rʲɪvɐˈlʲutsɨjə|}}}} (in [[Historiography in the Soviet Union|Soviet historiography]]), '''October coup''',{{Sfn|Figes|1996|loc=[http://www.orlandofiges.info/section6_TheOctoberRevolution1917/LeninandtheOctoberCoup.php Section 6: The October Revolution 1917]}}<ref name="eb_trr">{{Cite encyclopedia |title=The Russian Revolution |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union/The-Russian-Revolution}}</ref> '''Bolshevik coup''',<ref name=eb_trr/> or '''Bolshevik revolution''',<ref>{{Cite web |title=What Was the Bolshevik Revolution? |url=https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-46-our-russian-ally-(1945)/what-was-the-bolshevik-revolution |access-date=1 June 2024 |publisher=American Historical Association}}</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Russian Revolution, 1917 |encyclopedia=Holocaust Encyclopedia |url=https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-russian-revolution-1917}}</ref> was the second of [[Russian Revolution|two revolutions]] in Russia in 1917. It was led by [[Vladimir Lenin]]'s '''Bolsheviks'''. It began with an insurrection in Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg) on 25 October 1917 (Old Style), corresponding to 7 November 1917 (New Style). This event marked the precipitating factor of the Russian Civil War. The initial phase of the revolution, including the assault on Petrograd, was largely bloodless, with few casualties.

=== The Lulzy Origins ===
The October Revolution was basically the sequel nobody asked for after the February Revolution, which booted out Tsar Nicholas II (aka Mr. Autocracy) and replaced him with the Russian Provisional Government, led by Alexander Kerensky, the guy with a Napoleon complex but without the actual skills. This new gov was about as popular as dial-up internet because they thought it was a brilliant idea to keep Russia in World War I and also got trigger-happy during protests like the July Days, where they turned demonstrators into Swiss cheese.

By late 1917, the Provisional Government was a clown car run by the left-wing Socialist-Revolutionaries (SRs), but the far-left Bolsheviks were like, “Nah, fam, we want full communism.” Led by edgy memelord Leon Trotsky, the Petrograd Soviet voted to yeet the current regime with some classic revolutionary LARPing.

=== Bolshevik Blitzkrieg ===
On November 6, 1917 (Gregorian calendar, aka normie time), the Provisional Government tried to shut down the Bolshevik party by closing their newspapers and locking down Petrograd. Clearly, they didn’t get the memo that censorship only makes edgy people edgier. Minor slap-fights broke out, but then Bolshevik sailors and defecting soldiers swarmed in like the Red Wave DLC.

By the early morning of November 8, the Bolsheviks pulled a GTA speedrun and captured the Winter Palace, the Provisional Government’s final save point. Thus, the Bolsheviks effectively pulled off the ultimate IRL server takeover.

=== Post-Revolution Pogchamps ===
After the revolution, Russia basically turned into a battle royale, known as the Russian Civil War (1917–1922). This ended with the Bolsheviks winning and launching the Soviet Union, where communism became the new flavor of dystopia.

Western countries freaked out like helicopter parents and tried to intervene, but the Bolsheviks were like, “Don’t touch my spawn point,” and yeeted them out. Meanwhile, worldwide communists started throwing house parties celebrating the Bolshevik victory, while capitalist countries clenched their pearls.

October Revolution Day became the USSR’s annual excuse to hold massive parades and flex its tanks. Even after the USSR yeeted itself into the dustbin of history, some edgy communist LARPers around the world still celebrate it, probably with bad vodka and worse speeches.

=== Spicy Calendar Drama ===
So why is it called the October Revolution when it happened in November? Because Russia was still on the Julian calendar, like some kind of medieval boomer, while the rest of the world had switched to the Gregorian calendar. When the USSR finally caught up with the times, they still called it the October Revolution because branding.

For extra confusion, it’s also called the Bolshevik Revolution or the Communist Revolution, depending on how much tinfoil the person naming it was wearing. Early on, people just called it the October coup (Октябрьский переворот) or the Uprising of the 3rd, which sounds like a discount Star Wars movie.

=== Economic Hellscape ===
By the time the Bolsheviks rolled in, Russia's economy was already in the toilet. Thanks to the Provisional Government’s genius decision to keep fighting World War I, industrial production tanked harder than Netflix stock after a bad season. By autumn 1917, half the factories in places like the Urals and Donbas had rage-quit, unemployment was skyrocketing, and real wages were worth about as much as Monopoly money.

Russia's national debt ballooned to 50 billion roubles, and 11 billion of that was owed to foreign governments. In short, the country was financially more wrecked than a toddler in a candy store with a stolen credit card.

=== German Troll Support ===
During the revolution, Germany low-key played puppet master. They figured that if they helped Lenin and his Bolshevik edgelords take over, Russia would rage-quit World War I. So, like any good war profiteer, they sent Lenin back to Russia in a sealed train, probably hoping he’d turn the country into a massive flame war, which he did.

Germany basically funded the Bolsheviks' revolution DLC, hoping Russia would tap out of the war, which worked. Lenin got a free ride, and Russia got communism speed-runned into existence. GG, Germany.n.

Legitimacy

2025-03-21T05:08:10Z

Juninull:

[[File:278px-John Locke by Herman Verelst.png|thumb|alt=Fun fact: Locke was probably the original "free speech absolutist" before it was edgy, arguing that people shouldn't get executed just for having spicy takes. What a mad lad.|"John LOLcke," a wig-wearing 17th-century neckbeard who thought that peasants actually had opinions worth listening to. He came up with the crackpot idea of "consent of the governed," which basically means "the government shouldn't treat you like trash without asking first." This totally wild concept laid the groundwork for modern democracy, which is now ignored by most politicians anyway.]]
'''Legitimacy''' (n.): The mystical fairy dust that governments sprinkle over themselves to convince the peasants that their '''taxation, oppression, and general nonsense''' is somehow justified. Legitimacy is basically when the '''biggest gang''' in a region convinces everyone that they’re the '''good guys''' simply because they have fancier titles, shinier suits, and occasionally hold '''rigged popularity contests''' (also known as elections) to make the whole thing look official.

=== Political Legitimacy ===

In politics, legitimacy is when a bunch of people with '''bad haircuts and ties''' decide they have the divine right to tell you what to do because they '''read a fancy piece of paper out loud''' in a big room. In ancient China, this was called the '''Mandate of Heaven''', which meant that as long as the emperor wasn’t struck by lightning or overthrown by a peasant revolt, he was obviously appointed by the gods. Modern legitimacy is more complicated, mostly involving '''corrupt lobbyists''', media mouthpieces, and the occasional '''coup d’état''' disguised as a democratic transition.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Phelps|first1=Martha Lizabeth|title=Doppelgangers of the State: Private Security and Transferable Legitimacy|journal=Politics & Policy|date=December 2014|volume=42|issue=6|pages=824–849|doi=10.1111/polp.12100}}</ref>
=== Moral Legitimacy ===

When people voluntarily accept the '''societal LARP''' that those in charge actually have a moral right to boss them around. Basically, if enough people agree that a '''rich guy in a suit''' is allowed to ruin their lives through '''"legal channels"''', it somehow makes it okay. Philosophers like '''John Locke''' argued that government only has legitimacy if the people '''consent'''—an idea that’s about as realistic as a '''unicorn running for office'''. Meanwhile, thinkers like '''Robert A. Dahl''' described legitimacy as a metaphorical '''reservoir''', which makes sense considering how most modern governments are drowning in '''BS'''.<ref>{{cite book|last=O'Neil|first=Patrick H.|title=Essentials of Comparative Politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93376-5|pages=35–38}}</ref>

=== TL;DR ===

Legitimacy is the '''pretend hall pass''' governments wave around to avoid getting wedgied by the mob. As long as people buy into the '''cosplay of authority''', the whole charade continues. If they stop believing, it’s only a matter of time before the pitchforks and torches come out.

== Types ==
=== Tradition, charisma, and rational-legality ===
Legitimacy is a fancy word for when people don't throw a tantrum over who's in charge. It basically means that some schmuck or system is accepted as “right and proper” by the public, or at least tolerated because rebelling takes too much effort.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chen|first=Jing|title=Useful Complaints: How Petitions Assist Decentralized Authoritarianism in China|year=2016|publisher=Lexington Books|location=New York|isbn=9781498534536|pages=165}}</ref> In political science, legitimacy is the magic trick that makes authority look like consent instead of coercion. German edgelord sociologist [[Max Weber]] coined three types of legitimacy in his essay "Politics as Vocation":

* '''Traditional legitimacy''' – Basically, "we've always done it this way, so why stop?" This is when authority leeches off nostalgia and people's fear of change. Think of monarchies, where inbred royals still get to boss people around because muh tradition. Tribalism also falls under this category, where people pretend that old customs and elder wisdom somehow translate to effective governance.

* '''Charismatic legitimacy''' – This is when some smooth-talking narcissist with a god complex convinces people they’re the second coming of [insert deity]. It relies on the leader’s ✨epic vibes✨ rather than pesky things like competence or laws. The moment the leader croaks, the whole regime tends to fall apart unless they have a worthy successor. See: every cult leader ever.

* '''Rational-legal legitimacy''' – This is the bureaucratic snooze-fest type of legitimacy. It relies on rules, procedures, and the illusion of fairness. People obey because they trust the system, not because they care about who’s running it. It’s the foundation of modern democracy, where we pretend that voting makes a difference. It’s also the wet dream of pencil-pushers and policy nerds.<ref>{{cite book|last=O'Neil|first=Patrick H.|title=Essentials of Comparative Politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93376-5|pages=35–38}}</ref>

More recent scholarship, written by academics trying to justify their tenure, has concocted even more types of legitimacy to sound sophisticated. These include:

* '''Empirical legitimacy vs. normative legitimacy''' – Fancy terms for "what actually happens" vs. "what should happen" in politics. The former is whether people actually accept the regime, while the latter is whether the regime deserves to be accepted.
* '''Instrumental vs. substantive legitimacy''' – Instrumental means "this regime gives me free stuff, so I tolerate it," while substantive is "I genuinely believe this system is good" (rarely happens).
* '''Popular legitimacy''' – When the mob approves of the regime. See: bread and circuses.
* '''Regulative legitimacy''' – When the system appears legitimate just because it enforces rules, even if the rules are garbage.
* '''Procedural legitimacy''' – When people buy into the system because it follows the rules of the game, even if the game is rigged.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn Spaces |journal=Security in Transition |date=2015 |url=https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Risse |first1=Thomas |last2=Stollenwerk |first2=Eric |date=2018-05-11 |title=Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |language=en |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=403–418 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-023610 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schoon |first=Eric W. |date=2022-03-10 |title=Operationalizing Legitimacy |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221081379 |journal=American Sociological Review |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=478–503 |doi=10.1177/00031224221081379 |s2cid=247399875 |issn=0003-1224}}</ref>

=== Dignity, but Edgy ===
In the spicy and glorious hellscape that is conflict zones, where multiple warlords, tinpot dictators, and self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" play tug-of-war with authority, legitimacy is basically a social experiment. Weigand’s galaxy-brain theory of interactive dignity claims that legitimacy comes from not being a complete asshat when you interact with the peasants.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> Basically, if your local warlord gives you the occasional polite nod instead of torching your village, you might be more inclined to support him.
People just want basic human dignity and not to be treated like disposable meat puppets.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> In short, if your overlord treats you like a cash cow instead of a cockroach, they score bonus legitimacy points.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> If they fail at this very basic humanity simulator, people will gladly throw their lot in with some sketchy dudes with homemade flags.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref>

== Flavors of Legitimacy ==
[[File:Horus as falcon.svg.png|thumb|left|150px|Egyptian [[divine right of kings|holy bird king]] [[Horus]] giving side-eye to plebs]]

=== Divine Fan Fiction ===
{{Further|Divine right of kings|Mandate of Heaven|Imperial cult (ancient Rome)}}
In the OG theocracies, legitimacy was just divine LARPing.

In [[ancient Egypt]] (c. 3150 BC), Pharaohs were considered literal gods, with the theological canon stating they were basically the Egyptian version of a Superman x Jesus crossover, being the spawn of [[Osiris]] and the bird-headed god [[Horus]]. This made them un-punchable by peasants.
=== Democracy LARP ===
[[File:Women vote in Cairo - 27-May-2014.jpg|left|thumb|A rare photo of people pretending that their vote matters]]
In allegedly "civilized" societies, legitimacy comes from the high-IQ concept of voting. The whole "power to the people" thing hinges on the assumption that the system isn't rigged by things like [[gerrymandering]], which is basically electoral necromancy where politicians resurrect the dead spirit of democracy and make it dance for them.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/|title=A primer on gerrymandering and political polarization|last=Dews|first=Fred|date=2017-07-06|work=Brookings|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en-US|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710194523/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/|url-status=live}}</ref>
Then there's the ancient black magic ritual known as the [[United States Electoral College]], where you can win the throne despite having fewer votes, thanks to a game of political 4D chess.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Edwards, George C.|title=Why the electoral college is bad for America|year=2011|isbn=978-0-300-18087-9|edition=Second|location=New Haven|oclc=889943106}}</ref>

Also, since nothing screams "legitimacy" like voter suppression, there was the [[Shelby County v. Holder]] ruling in 2013, which made it easier to block certain demographics from voting.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|title=Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act|last=Liptak|first=Adam|work=The New York Times|date=25 June 2013|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en|archive-date=2019-05-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525030949/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
In short, democracy is a LARP with occasionally moving goalposts.

Other methods of legitimacy include financial transparency, which basically means "pretending you're honest while moving money through a legally sketchy pipeline,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://financialtransparency.org/|title=Home - Financial Transparency Coalition|website=Financial Transparency Coalition|language=en-US|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2021-05-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518200635/https://financialtransparency.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> and "stake-holder accountability," which is corporate speak for "blaming interns when things go sideways."

The Center for Public Impact, a think tank for people who love spreadsheets, attempted to figure out what makes governments legit by asking regular citizens, scholars, and bureaucrats, which is like asking Twitter to solve world hunger.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org|title=Finding Legitimacy|website=findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org|language=en-GB|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710164814/https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== "Good" governance vs "bad" governance ===
The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR) established standards of what is considered "good governance" that include the key attributes of transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation, and responsiveness (to the needs of the people).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx|title=Good Governance and Human Rights|website=OHCHR|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710164306/https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Input, output, and throughput legitimacy ===
Assessing the political legitimacy of a government can be done by examining three dimensions of legitimacy:
* '''Input legitimacy''', introduced by [[Fritz W. Scharpf|Fritz Scharpf]], refers to the responsiveness to citizen concerns, driven by public participation.
* '''Output legitimacy''' concerns the effectiveness of policy outcomes in addressing public needs.
* '''Throughput legitimacy''', introduced by [[Vivien A. Schmidt|Vivien Schmidt]], evaluates the governance processes that occur between input and output.

=== Negative and positive legitimacy ===
Abulof distinguishes between two types of political legitimacy:
* '''Negative political legitimacy (NPL)''': focuses on the object of legitimation (answering ''what'' is legitimate), concerned with determining the boundary between good and bad governance.
* '''Positive political legitimacy (PPL)''': concerns the source of legitimation (answering ''who'' is the 'legitimator'), focusing on the actors granting legitimacy.
From an NPL perspective, legitimacy derives from appropriate actions, whereas PPL links it to appropriate actors. In the social contract tradition:
* '''Hobbes''' and '''Locke''' emphasized NPL, prioritizing security and liberty, respectively.
* '''Rousseau''' emphasized PPL, viewing "the people" as the ultimate legitimators.
Both forms of legitimacy are critical for political stability.<ref name="Abulof">Abulof, Uriel (2015).
[http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jird201432a.html "Can't Buy Me Legitimacy": The Elusive and Illusive Stability of Mideast Rentier Regimes]. Journal of International Relations and Development.</ref>

=== Instrumental and substantive legitimacy ===
Weber's concept of legitimacy is based on shared ''values'', such as tradition and rational-legality. However, policies that aim to (re-)establish legitimacy by improving service delivery often respond to shared ''needs'' instead.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Weigand|first=Florian|date=April 2015|title=Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn Spaces|url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf|journal=SiT/WP|volume=04/15|access-date=2016-08-08|archive-date=2016-08-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816192014/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
Weigand differentiates between:
* '''Instrumental legitimacy''': based on the perceived effectiveness of service delivery and the rational assessment of authority's usefulness in meeting shared needs.
* '''Substantive legitimacy''': a normative judgment rooted in shared values. When individuals perceive an entity as having the right to exercise social control, they may accept personal disadvantages as legitimate.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref>

=== Perceived legitimacy ===
Legitimacy is not automatically granted through transactional means such as service provision, elections, or the rule of law.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weigand |first=Florian |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022-09-01 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55364-3 |access-date=2023-03-04 |archive-date=2023-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304093807/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Instead, it depends on:
* Citizens' '''perceptions and expectations''' of the state,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weigand |first=Florian |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022-09-01 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55364-3 |access-date=2023-03-04 |archive-date=2023-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304093807/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* '''Co-construction''' of legitimacy between state actors and citizens.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=McCullough|display-authors=etal|title=Reconstructing our understanding of the link between services and state legitimacy|publisher=ODI|year=2020|url=https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-May20-Proof11.pdf|access-date=2021-10-02|archive-date=2021-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210919192433/https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-May20-Proof11.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Establishing what qualifies as a legitimate form of government: A philosophical dumpster fire ===
Determining what counts as "legitimate" government is like arguing about which pizza topping reigns supreme—nobody really agrees, and the more you think about it, the more insane the idea seems. Here are some of the contenders for "legitimate government," but don't hold your breath for any clear answers:

=== Communism ===
Ah, communism—the political system that claims its legitimacy by… winning a civil war. Yeah, it’s that simple. The government’s actions are totally legit as long as they’ve either waged a successful revolution or won an election where everyone was either too scared to vote or didn’t know what was happening. In the early 20th century, communists leaned hard into the "science" behind their ideology (remember Marxism? Yeah, it’s scientific, apparently). Some impressive logic, if your idea of science involves saying "workers of the world unite" while your government hoards all the wealth.
[Note: Don't forget Salvador Allende in Chile—totally legit until, you know, a military coup.]

=== Constitutionalism ===
When a country says, "The law is supreme," they’re likely referring to constitutionalism, which sounds like a boring law class where you learn checks and balances—but hey, it's what keeps the government from turning into a dictatorship (sort of). The legitimacy here supposedly comes from everyone believing that the government is "doing things by the book." Just remember: the book is the constitution, which is treated as gospel—except when it's convenient for politicians to ignore it. For all we know, the checks in the system could be a neat little scam to make the people feel like they have a say, while the real power brokers laugh all the way to the bank.

=== Democracy ===
Democracy is basically the golden child of government legitimacy. Why? Because it claims that the people are in charge. It works, sometimes, except when it doesn’t. The legitimacy of a government supposedly comes from the "democratic principles" it follows. That sounds great, right? Except the entire system can be hijacked by billionaires and social media bots to steer the public in whatever direction suits them. Truly accountable to the people, right? Insert sarcasm here.

=== Fascism ===
Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s was like the edgy, controversial cousin who showed up to the party and started smashing everything. Fascists based their legitimacy on the absolute destruction of liberal democracy, because why follow the rules when you can just claim you’re "restoring order" by steamrolling over every single right people think they have? Carl Schmitt, the legal philosopher who helped the Nazis draft their "How to Break Democracy 101" guide, wasn’t shy about asking how a government can be considered legitimate when 51% of the population gets to decide everything while the other 49% is forced to accept it. Spoiler: it can’t, but they did it anyway, because who needs checks when you can just use force?

=== Monarchy ===
Monarchies are all about that divine right of kings, which is like saying, "I'm in charge because God said so." No, seriously, that’s it. Political legitimacy is supposedly given by the divine, or sometimes just by tradition—like the royal families of the world, who rule because people just decided that one family would rule everything forever. It's almost like a royal lottery where the winners are chosen by birthright. In modern times, absolute monarchies like the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) carry on the tradition of "God made me the boss." Legit, right? Well, it's better than a bunch of peasants with pitchforks storming your palace, I guess.

=== Theocracy ===
Now this one’s a real gem. Imagine a government that’s not just run by any old politicians, but by actual gods. Or, more realistically, a government run by people who claim to speak directly to gods. The legitimacy of a theocracy is based on the idea that a deity somehow gave the government its divine blessing. It's not that they actually know anything about politics or human needs—it's that they’re convinced God told them to rule, and anyone who argues with that is obviously a heretic. Classic theocratic move.

== See also ==
If you’re still not sure what you just read, here are some other fun and confusing topics you can explore:

* '''Delegitimization''': How to destroy the illusion of legitimacy.
* '''Governance failure''': When your government's idea of fixing things is to ignore the problem until it goes away (spoiler: it doesn't).
* '''Group decision-making''': The art of making bad decisions as a group.
* '''Mandate of Heaven''': When the universe says you’re allowed to rule, but also may revoke your permission at any time.
* '''Monopoly on violence''': The government's exclusive right to violently enforce the laws. Don’t you feel safe now?

== Further reading ==
'''Schoon, Eric W. (2022)''': Because nothing says "legitimacy" like sociological reviews that make your head spin.
'''Weigand, Florian (2015)''': A thrilling dive into legitimacy in conflict-torn spaces. You won't actually read this, but hey, it sounds cool.
'''Weigand, Florian (2022)''': Because nothing says legitimacy like waiting for dignity, especially in places where dignity is optional.

== References ==
[Check the citations if you need to pretend you did the research, or just Google the things you don’t care about.]

* '''Political philosophy''' – For when you want to overthink the meaning of life and the state, but don’t want to get your hands dirty.

* '''Authority control''' – Because who really controls the narrative? Definitely not you.

Categories:

* '''Authority''' – Obviously.
* '''Political concepts''' – Don’t overcomplicate it.
* '''Political culture''' – More like political drama.
* '''Social concepts''' – Where the drama starts.
* '''Sovereignty''' – The fancy way of saying "I’m in charge because I said so."

Legitimacy

2025-03-21T05:02:46Z

Juninull:

[[File:278px-John Locke by Herman Verelst.png|thumb|alt=Fun fact: Locke was probably the original "free speech absolutist" before it was edgy, arguing that people shouldn't get executed just for having spicy takes. What a mad lad.|"John LOLcke," a wig-wearing 17th-century neckbeard who thought that peasants actually had opinions worth listening to. He came up with the crackpot idea of "consent of the governed," which basically means "the government shouldn't treat you like trash without asking first." This totally wild concept laid the groundwork for modern democracy, which is now ignored by most politicians anyway.]]
'''Legitimacy''' (n.): The mystical fairy dust that governments sprinkle over themselves to convince the peasants that their '''taxation, oppression, and general nonsense''' is somehow justified. Legitimacy is basically when the '''biggest gang''' in a region convinces everyone that they’re the '''good guys''' simply because they have fancier titles, shinier suits, and occasionally hold '''rigged popularity contests''' (also known as elections) to make the whole thing look official.

=== Political Legitimacy ===

In politics, legitimacy is when a bunch of people with '''bad haircuts and ties''' decide they have the divine right to tell you what to do because they '''read a fancy piece of paper out loud''' in a big room. In ancient China, this was called the '''Mandate of Heaven''', which meant that as long as the emperor wasn’t struck by lightning or overthrown by a peasant revolt, he was obviously appointed by the gods. Modern legitimacy is more complicated, mostly involving '''corrupt lobbyists''', media mouthpieces, and the occasional '''coup d’état''' disguised as a democratic transition.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chen|first=Jing|title=Useful Complaints: How Petitions Assist Decentralized Authoritarianism in China|year=2016|publisher=Lexington Books|location=New York|isbn=9781498534536|pages=165}}</ref>

=== Moral Legitimacy ===

When people voluntarily accept the '''societal LARP''' that those in charge actually have a moral right to boss them around. Basically, if enough people agree that a '''rich guy in a suit''' is allowed to ruin their lives through '''"legal channels"''', it somehow makes it okay. Philosophers like '''John Locke''' argued that government only has legitimacy if the people '''consent'''—an idea that’s about as realistic as a '''unicorn running for office'''. Meanwhile, thinkers like '''Robert A. Dahl''' described legitimacy as a metaphorical '''reservoir''', which makes sense considering how most modern governments are drowning in '''BS'''.<ref>{{cite book|last=O'Neil|first=Patrick H.|title=Essentials of Comparative Politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93376-5|pages=35–38}}</ref>

=== TL;DR ===

Legitimacy is the '''pretend hall pass''' governments wave around to avoid getting wedgied by the mob. As long as people buy into the '''cosplay of authority''', the whole charade continues. If they stop believing, it’s only a matter of time before the pitchforks and torches come out.

== Types ==
=== Tradition, charisma, and rational-legality ===
Legitimacy is a fancy word for when people don't throw a tantrum over who's in charge. It basically means that some schmuck or system is accepted as “right and proper” by the public, or at least tolerated because rebelling takes too much effort.<ref>{{cite book|last=Chen|first=Jing|title=Useful Complaints: How Petitions Assist Decentralized Authoritarianism in China|year=2016|publisher=Lexington Books|location=New York|isbn=9781498534536|pages=165}}</ref> In political science, legitimacy is the magic trick that makes authority look like consent instead of coercion. German edgelord sociologist [[Max Weber]] coined three types of legitimacy in his essay "Politics as Vocation":

* '''Traditional legitimacy''' – Basically, "we've always done it this way, so why stop?" This is when authority leeches off nostalgia and people's fear of change. Think of monarchies, where inbred royals still get to boss people around because muh tradition. Tribalism also falls under this category, where people pretend that old customs and elder wisdom somehow translate to effective governance.

* '''Charismatic legitimacy''' – This is when some smooth-talking narcissist with a god complex convinces people they’re the second coming of [insert deity]. It relies on the leader’s ✨epic vibes✨ rather than pesky things like competence or laws. The moment the leader croaks, the whole regime tends to fall apart unless they have a worthy successor. See: every cult leader ever.

* '''Rational-legal legitimacy''' – This is the bureaucratic snooze-fest type of legitimacy. It relies on rules, procedures, and the illusion of fairness. People obey because they trust the system, not because they care about who’s running it. It’s the foundation of modern democracy, where we pretend that voting makes a difference. It’s also the wet dream of pencil-pushers and policy nerds.<ref>{{cite book|last=O'Neil|first=Patrick H.|title=Essentials of Comparative Politics|year=2010|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|location=New York|isbn=978-0-393-93376-5|pages=35–38}}</ref>

More recent scholarship, written by academics trying to justify their tenure, has concocted even more types of legitimacy to sound sophisticated. These include:

* '''Empirical legitimacy vs. normative legitimacy''' – Fancy terms for "what actually happens" vs. "what should happen" in politics. The former is whether people actually accept the regime, while the latter is whether the regime deserves to be accepted.
* '''Instrumental vs. substantive legitimacy''' – Instrumental means "this regime gives me free stuff, so I tolerate it," while substantive is "I genuinely believe this system is good" (rarely happens).
* '''Popular legitimacy''' – When the mob approves of the regime. See: bread and circuses.
* '''Regulative legitimacy''' – When the system appears legitimate just because it enforces rules, even if the rules are garbage.
* '''Procedural legitimacy''' – When people buy into the system because it follows the rules of the game, even if the game is rigged.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn Spaces |journal=Security in Transition |date=2015 |url=https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Risse |first1=Thomas |last2=Stollenwerk |first2=Eric |date=2018-05-11 |title=Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |language=en |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=403–418 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-023610 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schoon |first=Eric W. |date=2022-03-10 |title=Operationalizing Legitimacy |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221081379 |journal=American Sociological Review |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=478–503 |doi=10.1177/00031224221081379 |s2cid=247399875 |issn=0003-1224}}</ref>

=== Dignity, but Edgy ===
In the spicy and glorious hellscape that is conflict zones, where multiple warlords, tinpot dictators, and self-proclaimed "freedom fighters" play tug-of-war with authority, legitimacy is basically a social experiment. Weigand’s galaxy-brain theory of interactive dignity claims that legitimacy comes from not being a complete asshat when you interact with the peasants.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> Basically, if your local warlord gives you the occasional polite nod instead of torching your village, you might be more inclined to support him.
People just want basic human dignity and not to be treated like disposable meat puppets.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> In short, if your overlord treats you like a cash cow instead of a cockroach, they score bonus legitimacy points.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref> If they fail at this very basic humanity simulator, people will gladly throw their lot in with some sketchy dudes with homemade flags.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref>

== Flavors of Legitimacy ==
[[File:Horus as falcon.svg|thumb|left|150px|Egyptian [[divine right of kings|holy bird king]] [[Horus]] giving side-eye to plebs]]

=== Divine Fan Fiction ===
{{Further|Divine right of kings|Mandate of Heaven|Imperial cult (ancient Rome)}}
In the OG theocracies, legitimacy was just divine LARPing.

In [[ancient Egypt]] (c. 3150 BC), Pharaohs were considered literal gods, with the theological canon stating they were basically the Egyptian version of a Superman x Jesus crossover, being the spawn of [[Osiris]] and the bird-headed god [[Horus]]. This made them un-punchable by peasants.
=== Democracy LARP ===
[[File:Women vote in Cairo - 27-May-2014.jpg|left|thumb|A rare photo of people pretending that their vote matters]]
In allegedly "civilized" societies, legitimacy comes from the high-IQ concept of voting. The whole "power to the people" thing hinges on the assumption that the system isn't rigged by things like [[gerrymandering]], which is basically electoral necromancy where politicians resurrect the dead spirit of democracy and make it dance for them.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/|title=A primer on gerrymandering and political polarization|last=Dews|first=Fred|date=2017-07-06|work=Brookings|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en-US|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710194523/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/07/06/a-primer-on-gerrymandering-and-political-polarization/|url-status=live}}</ref>
Then there's the ancient black magic ritual known as the [[United States Electoral College]], where you can win the throne despite having fewer votes, thanks to a game of political 4D chess.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Edwards, George C.|title=Why the electoral college is bad for America|year=2011|isbn=978-0-300-18087-9|edition=Second|location=New Haven|oclc=889943106}}</ref>

Also, since nothing screams "legitimacy" like voter suppression, there was the [[Shelby County v. Holder]] ruling in 2013, which made it easier to block certain demographics from voting.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|title=Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act|last=Liptak|first=Adam|work=The New York Times|date=25 June 2013|access-date=2018-06-26|language=en|archive-date=2019-05-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525030949/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
In short, democracy is a LARP with occasionally moving goalposts.

Other methods of legitimacy include financial transparency, which basically means "pretending you're honest while moving money through a legally sketchy pipeline,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://financialtransparency.org/|title=Home - Financial Transparency Coalition|website=Financial Transparency Coalition|language=en-US|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2021-05-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518200635/https://financialtransparency.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> and "stake-holder accountability," which is corporate speak for "blaming interns when things go sideways."

The Center for Public Impact, a think tank for people who love spreadsheets, attempted to figure out what makes governments legit by asking regular citizens, scholars, and bureaucrats, which is like asking Twitter to solve world hunger.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org|title=Finding Legitimacy|website=findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org|language=en-GB|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710164814/https://findinglegitimacy.centreforpublicimpact.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== "Good" governance vs "bad" governance ===
The United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission (OHCHR) established standards of what is considered "good governance" that include the key attributes of transparency, responsibility, accountability, participation, and responsiveness (to the needs of the people).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx|title=Good Governance and Human Rights|website=OHCHR|access-date=2018-07-10|archive-date=2018-07-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180710164306/https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Input, output, and throughput legitimacy ===
Assessing the political legitimacy of a government can be done by examining three dimensions of legitimacy:
* '''Input legitimacy''', introduced by [[Fritz W. Scharpf|Fritz Scharpf]], refers to the responsiveness to citizen concerns, driven by public participation.
* '''Output legitimacy''' concerns the effectiveness of policy outcomes in addressing public needs.
* '''Throughput legitimacy''', introduced by [[Vivien A. Schmidt|Vivien Schmidt]], evaluates the governance processes that occur between input and output.

=== Negative and positive legitimacy ===
Abulof distinguishes between two types of political legitimacy:
* '''Negative political legitimacy (NPL)''': focuses on the object of legitimation (answering ''what'' is legitimate), concerned with determining the boundary between good and bad governance.
* '''Positive political legitimacy (PPL)''': concerns the source of legitimation (answering ''who'' is the 'legitimator'), focusing on the actors granting legitimacy.
From an NPL perspective, legitimacy derives from appropriate actions, whereas PPL links it to appropriate actors. In the social contract tradition:
* '''Hobbes''' and '''Locke''' emphasized NPL, prioritizing security and liberty, respectively.
* '''Rousseau''' emphasized PPL, viewing "the people" as the ultimate legitimators.
Both forms of legitimacy are critical for political stability.<ref name="Abulof">Abulof, Uriel (2015).
[http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/jird201432a.html "Can't Buy Me Legitimacy": The Elusive and Illusive Stability of Mideast Rentier Regimes]. Journal of International Relations and Development.</ref>

=== Instrumental and substantive legitimacy ===
Weber's concept of legitimacy is based on shared ''values'', such as tradition and rational-legality. However, policies that aim to (re-)establish legitimacy by improving service delivery often respond to shared ''needs'' instead.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Weigand|first=Florian|date=April 2015|title=Investigating the Role of Legitimacy in the Political Order of Conflict-torn Spaces|url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf|journal=SiT/WP|volume=04/15|access-date=2016-08-08|archive-date=2016-08-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160816192014/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62691/1/Investigating-Legitimacy-in-the-Political-Order-of-Conflict-torn-spaces.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
Weigand differentiates between:
* '''Instrumental legitimacy''': based on the perceived effectiveness of service delivery and the rational assessment of authority's usefulness in meeting shared needs.
* '''Substantive legitimacy''': a normative judgment rooted in shared values. When individuals perceive an entity as having the right to exercise social control, they may accept personal disadvantages as legitimate.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite book |last1=Weigand |first1=Florian |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022 |publisher=Columbia University Press |location=New York |isbn=9780231200493 |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493}}</ref>

=== Perceived legitimacy ===
Legitimacy is not automatically granted through transactional means such as service provision, elections, or the rule of law.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weigand |first=Florian |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022-09-01 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55364-3 |access-date=2023-03-04 |archive-date=2023-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304093807/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Instead, it depends on:
* Citizens' '''perceptions and expectations''' of the state,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Weigand |first=Florian |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |title=Waiting for Dignity: Legitimacy and Authority in Afghanistan |date=2022-09-01 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-55364-3 |access-date=2023-03-04 |archive-date=2023-03-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230304093807/http://cup.columbia.edu/book/waiting-for-dignity/9780231200493 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* '''Co-construction''' of legitimacy between state actors and citizens.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=McCullough|display-authors=etal|title=Reconstructing our understanding of the link between services and state legitimacy|publisher=ODI|year=2020|url=https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-May20-Proof11.pdf|access-date=2021-10-02|archive-date=2021-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210919192433/https://securelivelihoods.org/wp-content/uploads/SLRC-ServicesStateLegitimacy-Report-May20-Proof11.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Establishing what qualifies as a legitimate form of government: A philosophical dumpster fire ===
Determining what counts as "legitimate" government is like arguing about which pizza topping reigns supreme—nobody really agrees, and the more you think about it, the more insane the idea seems. Here are some of the contenders for "legitimate government," but don't hold your breath for any clear answers:

=== Communism ===
Ah, communism—the political system that claims its legitimacy by… winning a civil war. Yeah, it’s that simple. The government’s actions are totally legit as long as they’ve either waged a successful revolution or won an election where everyone was either too scared to vote or didn’t know what was happening. In the early 20th century, communists leaned hard into the "science" behind their ideology (remember Marxism? Yeah, it’s scientific, apparently). Some impressive logic, if your idea of science involves saying "workers of the world unite" while your government hoards all the wealth.
[Note: Don't forget Salvador Allende in Chile—totally legit until, you know, a military coup.]

=== Constitutionalism ===
When a country says, "The law is supreme," they’re likely referring to constitutionalism, which sounds like a boring law class where you learn checks and balances—but hey, it's what keeps the government from turning into a dictatorship (sort of). The legitimacy here supposedly comes from everyone believing that the government is "doing things by the book." Just remember: the book is the constitution, which is treated as gospel—except when it's convenient for politicians to ignore it. For all we know, the checks in the system could be a neat little scam to make the people feel like they have a say, while the real power brokers laugh all the way to the bank.

=== Democracy ===
Democracy is basically the golden child of government legitimacy. Why? Because it claims that the people are in charge. It works, sometimes, except when it doesn’t. The legitimacy of a government supposedly comes from the "democratic principles" it follows. That sounds great, right? Except the entire system can be hijacked by billionaires and social media bots to steer the public in whatever direction suits them. Truly accountable to the people, right? Insert sarcasm here.

=== Fascism ===
Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s was like the edgy, controversial cousin who showed up to the party and started smashing everything. Fascists based their legitimacy on the absolute destruction of liberal democracy, because why follow the rules when you can just claim you’re "restoring order" by steamrolling over every single right people think they have? Carl Schmitt, the legal philosopher who helped the Nazis draft their "How to Break Democracy 101" guide, wasn’t shy about asking how a government can be considered legitimate when 51% of the population gets to decide everything while the other 49% is forced to accept it. Spoiler: it can’t, but they did it anyway, because who needs checks when you can just use force?

=== Monarchy ===
Monarchies are all about that divine right of kings, which is like saying, "I'm in charge because God said so." No, seriously, that’s it. Political legitimacy is supposedly given by the divine, or sometimes just by tradition—like the royal families of the world, who rule because people just decided that one family would rule everything forever. It's almost like a royal lottery where the winners are chosen by birthright. In modern times, absolute monarchies like the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) carry on the tradition of "God made me the boss." Legit, right? Well, it's better than a bunch of peasants with pitchforks storming your palace, I guess.

=== Theocracy ===
Now this one’s a real gem. Imagine a government that’s not just run by any old politicians, but by actual gods. Or, more realistically, a government run by people who claim to speak directly to gods. The legitimacy of a theocracy is based on the idea that a deity somehow gave the government its divine blessing. It's not that they actually know anything about politics or human needs—it's that they’re convinced God told them to rule, and anyone who argues with that is obviously a heretic. Classic theocratic move.

== See also ==
If you’re still not sure what you just read, here are some other fun and confusing topics you can explore:

* '''Delegitimization''': How to destroy the illusion of legitimacy.
* '''Governance failure''': When your government's idea of fixing things is to ignore the problem until it goes away (spoiler: it doesn't).
* '''Group decision-making''': The art of making bad decisions as a group.
* '''Mandate of Heaven''': When the universe says you’re allowed to rule, but also may revoke your permission at any time.
* '''Monopoly on violence''': The government's exclusive right to violently enforce the laws. Don’t you feel safe now?

== Further reading ==
'''Schoon, Eric W. (2022)''': Because nothing says "legitimacy" like sociological reviews that make your head spin.
'''Weigand, Florian (2015)''': A thrilling dive into legitimacy in conflict-torn spaces. You won't actually read this, but hey, it sounds cool.
'''Weigand, Florian (2022)''': Because nothing says legitimacy like waiting for dignity, especially in places where dignity is optional.

== References ==
[Check the citations if you need to pretend you did the research, or just Google the things you don’t care about.]

* '''Political philosophy''' – For when you want to overthink the meaning of life and the state, but don’t want to get your hands dirty.

* '''Authority control''' – Because who really controls the narrative? Definitely not you.

Categories:

* '''Authority''' – Obviously.
* '''Political concepts''' – Don’t overcomplicate it.
* '''Political culture''' – More like political drama.
* '''Social concepts''' – Where the drama starts.
* '''Sovereignty''' – The fancy way of saying "I’m in charge because I said so."

File:Women vote in Cairo - 27-May-2014.jpg

2025-03-21T02:53:14Z

Juninull:

File:Horus as falcon.svg.png

2025-03-21T02:49:04Z

Juninull:

Legitimacy

2025-03-21T02:48:20Z

Juninull:

Legitimacy

2025-03-21T01:14:08Z

Juninull:

Legitimacy

2025-03-21T01:12:32Z

Juninull: BLANKING IN PROGRESS

Legitimacy

2025-03-21T01:10:24Z

Juninull: Created page with "Tradition, charisma and rational-legality Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper".[6] In political science, legitimacy has traditionally been understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion. The three types of political legitimacy described by German sociologis..."

Tradition, charisma and rational-legality
Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper".[6] In political science, legitimacy has traditionally been understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion. The three types of political legitimacy described by German sociologist Max Weber, in "Politics as Vocation", are traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal:

Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that emphasize the history of the authority of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as historically accepted, hence its continuity, because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions of traditional government usually are historically continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism.
Charismatic legitimacy derives from the ideas and personal charisma of the leader, a person whose authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to agreement with the government's régime and rule. A charismatic government usually features weak political and administrative institutions, because they derive authority from the persona of the leader, and usually disappear without the leader in power. However, if the charismatic leader has a successor, a government derived from charismatic legitimacy might continue.
Rational-legal legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy.[7]
More recent scholarship distinguishes between multiple other types of legitimacy in an effort to draw distinctions between various approaches to the construct. These include empirical legitimacy versus normative legitimacy, instrumental versus substantive legitimacy, popular legitimacy, regulative legitimacy, and procedural legitimacy.[8][9][10] Types of legitimacy draw distinctions that account for different sources of legitimacy, different frameworks for evaluating legitimacy, or different objects of legitimacy.[11][12]

Interactive dignity
Legitimacy in conflict zones, where multiple authorities compete over authority and legitimacy, can rest on other sources. The theory of interactive dignity by Weigand shows that interactions are key for the construction of substantive legitimacy in such contexts.[13] The aspect of an authority that most concerns people in the absence of other accountability mechanisms are its actions, particularly with regard to how authorities interact with them on a day-to-day basis. The value-based expectation people have with regard to such interactions is one of human dignity.[14] People expect procedures to be fair and practices to be respectful, reflecting a serving rather than an extractive attitude.[15] As long as authorities do not satisfy people's more immediate expectation of interactive dignity, people support and consider alternative authorities to be more legitimate.

File:278px-John Locke by Herman Verelst.png

2025-03-21T00:28:14Z

Juninull: "John LOLcke," a wig-wearing 17th-century neckbeard who thought that peasants actually had opinions worth listening to. He came up with the crackpot idea of "consent of the governed," which basically means "the government shouldn't treat you like trash without asking first." This totally wild concept laid the groundwork for modern democracy, which is now ignored by most politicians anyway. Fun fact: Locke was probably the original "free speech absolutist" before it was edgy, arguing that peo...

== Summary ==
"John LOLcke," a wig-wearing 17th-century neckbeard who thought that peasants actually had opinions worth listening to. He came up with the crackpot idea of "consent of the governed," which basically means "the government shouldn't treat you like trash without asking first." This totally wild concept laid the groundwork for modern democracy, which is now ignored by most politicians anyway.

Fun fact: Locke was probably the original "free speech absolutist" before it was edgy, arguing that people shouldn't get executed just for having spicy takes. What a mad lad.