The Failure of Weber's Conception of Legitimacy: Its Causes and Implications

Abstract

MAX WEBER'S CONCEPr of legitimacy occupies a paradoxical position in modern political science. On the one hand, it has proved to be the dominant model for empirical investigations of legitimacy. On the other hand, it has met with almost universal criticism by those political philosophers who have evaluated it.' The most common complaint is that in his effort to construct a useful concept for empirical research, Weber distorts the essential meaning of legitimacy. The concept should properly signify a normative evaluation of a political regime: the correctness of its procedures, the justification for its decisions, and the fairness with which it treats its subjects. In Weber's hands, however, legitimacy no longer represents an evaluation of a regime; indeed, it no longer refers directly to the regime itself. Rather, it is defined as the belief of citizens that the regime is, to speak in circles, legitimate. Legitimacy becomes, for Weber, simply a matter of fact, the fact that citizens hold a certain belief. Worse, according to critics, Weber's actual development of the concept does not even preserve this much of the original content. In the end, Weber virtually identifies legitimacy with stable and effective political power, reducing it to a routine submission to authority.2