The Idea
This claim links the rule of law to a single source of legitimacy: citizens’ consent through voting. The point here is that the state is not considered legitimate merely because it exists or because it is strong, but because it receives political acceptance from the community it governs. In this way, citizens become the source of modern legitimacy, not merely subjects within an established system.
Condensed Formulation
Rule of law: derives its legitimacy from citizens’ voting
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim appears within a logic that distinguishes between existing power and the legitimacy granted by the political community. It does not simply describe an electoral procedure, but places voting at the heart of the modern understanding of the state. Within the book’s argument, this emphasis seems to be part of a discussion of the conditions for the transition of politics from obedience to public consent.
Why It Matters
The importance of this claim lies in the way it clarifies Arkoun’s understanding of the relationship between governance and society in the modern state. Here, legitimacy is neither religious nor hereditary, but based on citizens’ participation. This helps read his thesis as a defense of a political horizon that makes people the source of recognition for authority.
Brief Evidence Passage
This claim links the rule of law to the source of its legitimacy: citizens’ consent through voting. The state is not legitimate merely because it exists or because it is strong, but because it receives political acceptance from the community it governs. Thus citizens become the source of modern legitimacy, not merely subjects within an established system.
Reading Questions
- How does this definition of the state’s legitimacy change our understanding of the relationship between ruler and ruled?
- Does the text present voting as merely a procedure, or as an ethical and political foundation of legitimacy?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.