This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
Power and legitimacy are among the most fundamental concepts in political science and political philosophy. These two phenomena, present since the existence of human communities, play a central role in the establishment, maintenance, and transformation of social order. Power, in its most general definition, refers to the capacity of an actor to influence or control the behavior of others according to their own will; legitimacy, by contrast, is the condition in which this power is recognized by those governed as rightful, correct, and lawful. Legitimacy provides a moral and legal foundation that transforms coercive rule into a relationship based on consent. Therefore, no political power can sustain its existence for long solely through pressure and fear; it must find a social base and gain the consent of those governed. The concepts of political power and legitimacy have undergone significant change and transformation from classical antiquity to the modern era. Understanding this transformation is critical to grasping the fundamental dynamics of the history of political thought and contemporary political systems.
Power, at the center of political thought, represents the authority to govern, direct, and regulate a society. This authority encompasses the power to make decisions, enact laws, and implement those decisions. However, the mere existence of power is insufficient for stable governance. The durability and effectiveness of power depend largely on its legitimacy. Legitimacy derives from the Latin root "lex" (law) and the term "legitimus" (lawful, in accordance with law), signifying the recognition by society of a government or ruler’s right to govern. Legitimate power secures obedience not through force but through consent. This consent stems from the belief that the government is just, serves the common good, and is grounded in specific principles—such as tradition, law, or charisma. In the absence of legitimacy, those in power are continually compelled to resort to coercion, leading to social instability, rebellion, and political crises. Thus, legitimacy constitutes the most solid foundation of power and the guarantee of political order’s continuity.
Sociologist Max Weber made a significant contribution to the understanding of legitimacy by classifying its sources into three ideal types. This classification is widely used to analyze the different foundations upon which power has rested throughout history.
This type of legitimacy is rooted in traditions, customs, and established beliefs from the past. Power is accepted because "it has always been this way." Monarchies, dynasties, and patrimonial states are the most typical examples of this form of legitimacy. The authority of the ruler is transmitted through sacred traditions and hereditary succession. Obedience in this system is based on personal loyalty, and rules are customary rather than codified.
This type rests on the extraordinary, exceptional, and even supernatural personal qualities attributed to a leader. The leader’s heroism, sanctity, or exemplary character inspires mass devotion. Charismatic leaders may be revolutionary figures who dismantle existing orders or initiate profound transformations. Because this form of legitimacy is based on emotional attachment to the leader, it is powerful yet highly fragile. A crisis of legitimacy arises upon the leader’s death or loss of charisma.
This type, which forms the foundation of modern states, is based on laws and rules that are rational, universal, and independent of individuals or traditions. Power is acquired and exercised according to procedures established by the constitution and statutes. Bureaucracy is the most important instrument of this system. Obedience is directed not toward the individual ruler but toward the office held and its legally defined authority. Democratic elections are the most prominent manifestation of this form of legitimacy.
In addition to these three types, historically other arguments for legitimacy have emerged, such as conquest, divine right, paternalism, and—particularly in the modern era—the social contract.
Debates on legitimacy in Western political thought extend back to ancient Greece. For thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle, legitimacy was closely tied to virtue and justice. The legitimacy of rule depended on governance by the wise and virtuous, who served the common good. However, this understanding inherently presupposed a hierarchical and unequal social model. In medieval Europe, the source of legitimacy was attributed to divine will. According to the theocratic view, kings and emperors derived their authority from God and thus possessed an unquestionable authority. The Church served as the primary institution validating this legitimacy.
With the advent of modernity, particularly from the 17th century onward, social contract theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau brought about a fundamental shift in the understanding of legitimacy. These thinkers argued that the source of power lies in the consent of the governed. Legitimacy was grounded in a hypothetical contract through which individuals came together to form a state in order to secure their own security and freedom. This approach challenged classical notions of sovereignty by shifting the foundation of legitimacy to the individual and popular will, thereby establishing the philosophical basis for modern democratic systems.
In Islamic political thought, the question of power and legitimacy has been shaped around the concepts of caliphate and imamate. During the classical period, theologians, jurists, and philosophers produced a rich literature on how a legitimate authority should be established and what qualities it must possess. The essential conditions for a legitimate ruler (imam or caliph) were generally identified as knowledge, justice, and reason. The institution of bay'ah—the oath of allegiance sworn by the community or its representatives to the leader—played a crucial role in establishing legitimacy. However, political transformations within the Islamic world also influenced the understanding of legitimacy. Particularly toward the end of the Abbasid Caliphate, the weakening of central authority, along with major challenges such as the Mongol invasions and the Crusades, generated widespread anxiety about survival. As a natural consequence, from the 11th century onward, factors such as strength, influence, and coercive military power became integrated into the essential criteria of legitimacy. The ability to ensure political stability and social order became the most important indicator of a ruler’s legitimacy.
The Ottoman State was founded upon strong foundations of legitimacy that sustained it for six centuries. Ottoman legitimacy was a syncretic structure combining two primary sources: the Turkic-Oghuz tradition (örf-töre) and Islamic law (sharia). Traditional practices inherited from earlier Turkic state models were harmonized with the legal and ethical principles introduced by Islam. However, the central element supporting this dual structure was a robust conception of the state and its ideology. The legitimacy of the Ottoman sultan rested fundamentally on the mission of being the protector of Islam and its subjects. The sultan was responsible for establishing justice, maintaining social order, and defending the state against internal and external threats. As long as the Ottoman state fulfilled this mission, the sultan’s power was regarded as legitimate. The state’s strength ensured the continuity of the sultan’s legitimacy.
In the political history of the Republic of Türkiye, debates over power and legitimacy hold a significant place, particularly in relation to constitutions and constituent authorities. The constitution, as the supreme legal document defining the fundamental structure of the state, its mode of governance, and the limits of power, also serves as the foundational document of legitimacy. In democratic systems, the ultimate source of legitimacy for a constitution and its constituent authority lies in the consent of the people. Türkiye’s constitutional history includes four constitutions adopted under different periods and conditions: 1921, 1924, 1961, and 1982. Analyses of the legitimacy of the constituent authorities that produced these constitutions are typically conducted through the distinction between "normal periods" and "exceptional periods." Constitutions drafted during normal periods, such as the 1924 Constitution, through civil and democratic processes, are generally considered to have stronger legitimacy. In contrast, the 1921 Constitution, drafted during the War of Independence, and the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions, drafted after military interventions, have been subjects of debate regarding their legitimacy as products of exceptional circumstances. The emergence of a long-lasting constitution widely accepted by society is possible only when the constituent authority’s legitimacy is grounded in broad popular consent.
Conceptual Framework
Sources and Types of Legitimacy
Traditional Legitimacy
Charismatic Legitimacy
Rational-Legal Legitimacy
Historical Perspective on Power and Legitimacy
Development in Western Thought
Islamic Political Thought
The Ottoman State Model
The Problem of Legitimacy in the Republic of Türkiye
