Religion as a Means of Maintaining Legitimacy in the Canadian State

Abstract


 
 
 “[I]f a system of rules is to be imposed by force on any, there must be a sufficient number who accept it voluntarily. Without their voluntary co-operation, thus creating authority, the coercive power of law and government cannot be established” 1 – H.L.A. Hart
 “For a domination...justification of its legitimacy is much more than a matter of a theoretical or philosophical speculation; it rather constitutes the basis of very real differences in the empirical structure of domination. The reason for this fact lies in the generally observable need of any power, or even of any advantage of life, to justify itself.”2 – Max Weber
 I. Introduction
 In the above quotes, Hart and Weber both point to a requisite element that all nation states share in their quest to maintain a stable order. To appear legitimate, a state must represent itself in a way that is palatable to its citizens. Put differently, a state must convince its populace that the power it wields is rightly wielded. If the majority of its citizens do not accept the legitimacy of the state, then the very stability of the state is undermined; generally, it is only a matter of time before this state is overthrown or reconfigured in a fashion agreeable to the citizenry.3 This issue of legitimacy forms the basis of this study. With a focus on Canada, the following will consider a means by which legitimate status is presented and maintained by the state.
 1 H.L.A Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) at 201 [Hart]. 2 Max Weber, On Law in Economy and Society. Trans. Edward Shils (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969) at 335 [Weber]. It is important to note that Weber devotes a significant amount of discussion to the definition of ‘domination’. Broadly speaking, Weber states, “in our terminology domination shall be identical with authoritarian power of command. To be more specific, domination will thus mean the situation in which: The manifested will (command) of the ruler or rulers is meant to influence the conduct of one or more others (the ruled) and actually does influence it in such a way that their conduct to a socially relevant degree occurs as if the ruled had made the content of the command the maxim of their conduct for its very own sake” (Weber at 328). 3 Hart, supra note 1 at 201.