Formulation of the Claim
Arkoun calls for distinguishing between political power and higher legitimacy.
Explanation
This claim draws a firm line between what power possesses in terms of actual influence and the higher warrant it invokes to consolidate its rule. Legitimacy here is not merely an extension of power, but an independent standard that should not be reduced to a political decision.
This distinction appears within Arkoun’s critique of the confusion between the religious and the political, where power is sometimes granted an attribute that exceeds it and turns it into a source of right itself. He therefore insists on maintaining a distance between the administration of rule and the claim to possess the higher warrant that justifies it.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom belongs to Arkoun’s effort to dismantle forms of overlap between religious authority and mechanisms of rule, and to prevent the seizure of meaning in the name of power. It is close to his theses that draw attention to the need to critique the structures that make the political seem as though it alone bears truth or final legitimacy.
Limits of the Claim
The atom does not imply a rejection of political power in itself, nor does it mean denying the need to organize public affairs. Nor does it reduce Arkoun’s thought to a simple normative position; rather, it points to a critique of a historical configuration that made legitimacy subordinate to power instead of understanding it as a question independent of it.