Idea
The text states that military or police regimes do not, in the first place, allow any debate over legitimacy, because their nature is based on closing off the public sphere rather than opening it. In such regimes, the question of the source of authority and its limits is not raised; instead, force is imposed as a final reality. Governance thus becomes closer to coercive administration than to representation or political consensus.
Concise Formulation
Military/police regimes: do not allow: debate over legitimacy
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim clarifies one of the conditions of the crisis discussed in the book: the absence of a field in which legitimacy can be debated. When the question is blocked from the outset, politics in its public sense is disabled and replaced by the logic of control. The claim therefore supports Arkoun’s argument by linking the nature of the political system to the possibility of reform or its blockage.
Why It Matters
The importance of the idea lies in showing that problems of legitimacy cannot be resolved within a system that prevents them from being raised. It also helps explain why some crises seem intractable despite the abundance of political slogans. Through it, Arkoun’s concern with the structure that makes debate possible before anything else becomes visible.
Brief Evidence
The text holds that military or police regimes do not even permit debate over legitimacy. Their nature is based on closing off the public sphere, not opening it, and the question of the source of authority and its limits is not raised within them. Governance thus becomes closer to coercive administration than to representation or political consensus.
Reading Questions
- How does the absence of debate over legitimacy affect the meaning of politics itself?
- Can a regime that forbids questioning its legitimacy be reformed?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.