Editing State (polity) (section)

==Theories of state legitimacy==
{{Main|Legitimacy (political)}}States generally rely on a claim to some form of [[legitimacy (political)|political legitimacy]] in order to maintain domination over their subjects.<ref name="vincent-1992-43">Vincent, 1992: [https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA43 p. 43] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624102338/https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA43|date=24 June 2016}}</ref><ref>Malešević, 2002: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA85 p. 85] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160520023400/https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA85 |date=20 May 2016 }}</ref><ref>Dogan, 1992: [https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA119 pp. 119–120] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617061135/https://books.google.com/books?id=_MdR_fvPxZoC&pg=PA119 |date=17 June 2016 }}</ref>

=== Social contract theory ===
{{Main|Social contract}}
Various social contract theories have been proffered to establish state legitimacy and to explain state formation. Common elements in these theories are a [[state of nature]] that incentivizes people to seek out the establishment of a state. [[Thomas Hobbes]] described the state of nature as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" ([[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|''Leviathan'']], Chapters XIII–XIV).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes|url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm|access-date=2020-11-19|website=www.gutenberg.org}}</ref> Locke takes a more benign view of the state of nature and is unwilling to take as hard a stance on the degeneracy of the state of nature. He does agree that it is equally incapable of providing a high quality of life. Locke argues for inalienable human rights. One of the most significant rights for Locke was the right to property. He viewed it as a keystone right that was inadequately protected in the state of nature.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Locke|first=John|title=Second Treatise of Government|year=1690}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Rand, Paterson, and the Problem of Anarchism |journal=The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies |date=2013 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=3 |doi=10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.1.0003|last1=Stephen Cox |s2cid=169439235 }}</ref> Social contract theorists frequently argue for some level of [[Natural rights and legal rights|natural rights]]. In order to protect their ability to exercise these rights, they are willing to give up some other rights to the state to allow it to establish governance.{{citation needed|date=October 2021}} Social contract theory then bases government legitimacy on the consent of the governed, but such legitimacy only extends as far as the governed have consented. This line of reasoning figures prominently in [[United States Declaration of Independence|The United States Declaration of Independence]].

===Divine right of kings===
{{Main|Divine right of kings}}

The rise of the modern-day state system was closely related to changes in political thought, especially concerning the changing understanding of legitimate state power and control. Early modern defenders of absolutism ([[Absolute monarchy]]), such as [[Thomas Hobbes]] and [[Jean Bodin]] undermined the doctrine of the [[divine right of kings]] by arguing that the power of kings should be justified by reference to the people. Hobbes in particular went further to argue that political power should be justified with reference to the individual (Hobbes wrote in the time of the [[English Civil War]]), not just to the people understood collectively. Both Hobbes and Bodin thought they were defending the power of kings, not advocating for democracy, but their arguments about the nature of sovereignty were fiercely resisted by more traditional defenders of the power of kings, such as [[Sir Robert Filmer]] in England, who thought that such defenses ultimately opened the way to more democratic claims.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

===Rational-legal authority===
{{Main|Rational-legal authority}}

Max Weber identified three main sources of political legitimacy in his works. The first, legitimacy based on traditional grounds is derived from a belief that things should be as they have been in the past, and that those who defend these traditions have a legitimate claim to power. The second, legitimacy based on charismatic leadership, is devotion to a leader or group that is viewed as exceptionally heroic or virtuous. Max Weber's concept of charisma is also explored by Fukuyama, who uses it to explain why individuals relinquish their personal freedoms and more egalitarian smaller communities in favor of larger, more authoritarian states. The Scholars goes further by saying that Charismatic leaders can leverage this mass mobilization as a military force, achieving victories and securing peace, which in turn further legitimizes their authority. Fukuyama cites the example of Muhammad, whose influence facilitated the rise of a powerful state in North Africa and the Middle East, despite limited economic foundations.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Fukuyama |first1=Francis |title=The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. |date=2012 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |isbn=978-0-374-53322-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i9xRAQAAMAAJ&q=origins+of+political+order+amazon}}</ref>
The third is [[rational-legal authority]], whereby legitimacy is derived from the belief that a certain group has been placed in power in a legal manner, and that their actions are justifiable according to a specific code of written laws. Weber believed that the modern state is characterized primarily by appeals to rational-legal authority.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wallerstein, Immanuel |title=The end of the world as we know it: social science for the twenty-first century |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]] |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8166-3398-2 |page=228 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PEmVAQ_HMc8C&pg=PA228|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160528230745/https://books.google.com/books?id=PEmVAQ_HMc8C&pg=PA228 |archive-date=28 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Collins, Randall |title=Weberian Sociological Theory |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1986 |isbn=978-0-521-31426-8 |page=158 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=v39x_fKR-ykC&pg=PA158|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603181228/https://books.google.com/books?id=v39x_fKR-ykC&pg=PA158 |archive-date=3 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Max Weber dictionary: key words and central concepts |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-8047-5095-0 |page=148 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_c3Mcnh8hCgC&pg=PA148 |author1=Swedberg, Richard |author2=Agevall, Ola |name-list-style=amp|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428101520/https://books.google.com/books?id=_c3Mcnh8hCgC&pg=PA148 |archive-date=28 April 2016}}</ref>