Protesting to an illegitimate government can be seen as legitimising it because, by engaging with the system, even through dissent, protesters acknowledge its authority and role as the focal point of power. This recognition implies that the government has the capacity to respond or change in response to public pressure, which can inadvertently reinforce its position as the rightful governing body. In essence, the act of protesting within the framework of the current system validates its existence and suggests that change is possible through the very mechanisms the government controls. By contrast, creating alternative structures or refusing to engage can undermine the legitimacy of the system by denying it the acknowledgement it seeks from the governed.
Alternative option
The creation of a parallel political and social system to avoid the influence of a corrupt one is often referred to as “dual power” or “parallel governance.” This concept involves setting up alternative institutions and structures that operate alongside the official ones, often with the goal of replacing or undermining the corrupt system.
- Dual Power:
This term originates from the Russian Revolution of 1917, when revolutionary forces set up their own institutions of governance alongside the existing government. The goal was to create an alternative system that could eventually take over. - Parallel Governance:
This is a broader term that can apply to any situation where alternative structures are created, such as in resistance movements or self-organised communities that seek to bypass or replace existing authorities.
These systems are usually formed to offer a just and functional alternative, as the established one is seen as illegitimate, ineffective, or corrupt.
Representative governance
Representative governance can always open the way for corruption because it concentrates decision-making power in the hands of a few individuals, creating opportunities for those in power to prioritise personal or special interests over the public good. Representatives, once in power, may act with limited oversight and become susceptible to bribery, lobbying, or manipulation, compromising their integrity. The distance between representatives and the people they govern can lead to a lack of accountability, allowing corruption to take root and flourish within the governing structures.
Protesting
Protesting to a corrupt representative government legitimises its claim to power by implicitly recognising its authority to address grievances and enact change. By directing demands and attention toward the government, protesters acknowledge it as the central entity capable of resolving issues, reinforcing its position as the rightful governing body. This engagement validates the system’s structure, even in its corruption, by accepting its role in the political process, thus giving it the legitimacy it seeks through public interaction and recognition.
Not doing
The concept of ‘not doing,’ or deliberate inaction, can be a powerful strategy against acknowledging a corrupt government by denying it the recognition and participation it relies on to maintain legitimacy. By refusing to engage, whether through protests, voting, or even public discourse, individuals withdraw their consent and energy from the system, weakening its perceived authority. This passive resistance disrupts the government’s ability to assert control, as it thrives on public interaction, even in dissent. ‘Not doing’ shifts power away from the corrupt system by refusing to validate its existence or give it the attention it needs to sustain itself.
In war
In strategies of war, the use of strategic non-engagement can be extremely effective by conserving resources, confusing the enemy, and forcing them to overextend or make critical mistakes. By not engaging directly, a force can avoid unnecessary conflict, allowing them to choose more advantageous moments to strike or negotiate from a position of strength. Strategic non-engagement also disrupts the enemy’s plans, as it denies them the opportunity to exploit predictable responses, leaving them vulnerable to uncertainty, exhaustion, and eventual defeat through psychological and tactical attrition.
By protesting, an individual is providing the beast with a nice big fat diet of legitimacy.