How Civility Matters in Civil Matters: Procedural Justice and Court Legitimacy in the Midst of a Legitimacy Crisis

The procedural justice thesis that quality of treatment matters more than outcomes in people’s perception of institutional legitimacy is supported by a large body of research. But studies also suggest that distributive justice and the effectiveness of authorities are more important in certain legal settings (civil courts) and national contexts (posttransition societies). This study tests these ideas through a survey of 192 civil litigants in Poland, a postcommunist country where the national judiciary has recently been subject to intense political scrutiny. Our findings support the generalizability of procedural justice, and especially voice, but also demonstrate the significance of outcomes and legal cynicism. We also discuss prior court contact, role (plaintiff versus defendants), and representation (presence of counsel) as potential moderators on litigants’ perceptions of court legitimacy.

The Legitimation Strategies of “Progressive” Prosecutors

This article focuses on the self-legitimation strategies of frontline prosecutors working in a Northeastern city in the United States (“Belton”). The research took place in a self-described “progressive” prosecutor's office in the midst of a legitimacy crisis that prosecutors faced across the country. The prosecutors in Belton spoke about their role and practices in the face of this legitimacy crisis through a strategy of differentiation from other criminal justice actors, aimed at establishing their purported positional and moral superiority in enacting criminal justice practices, and through minimizing their responsibility for the systemic harms that prosecutors more generally have been said to perpetuate.

Burkina Faso's government is facing legitimacy crisis

Headline BURKINA FASO: Government faces legitimacy crisis

Democracy and Capitalism in the Interregnum: Trump’s Failed Self-Coup and After

This paper addresses Trump’s failed self-coup, its authoritarian backwash, and threats to democracy. It analyzes his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which contributed to his 2020 election loss and deepened the political polarization that led to the January 6 Capitol insurrection. The essay also discusses how the forty-year acceleration of economic inequality and sociopolitical de-democratization generated a legitimacy crisis of the hegemonic, neoliberal regime that opened way for Trumpist ethnoracial nationalism. The Trump presidency and pandemic increased the intensity of the political-economic contradictions and transparency of the attenuated relationship of democracy and capitalism. In the consequent “interregnum,” fundamental threats to democratic electoral institutions persist, yet a clear, realistic vision of an alternative democratic regime and the political bloc to bring it into being have yet to be forged. The fate of American democracy rides on overcoming the remarkable denial and normalization of the Trump coup attempt and on forging new safeguards for electoral institutions. Preventing a recurrence, however, requires a progressive transformation of Trumpism’s de-democratized seedbed – neoliberal capitalism.

One World: One Dream

In this chapter, I consider the growing influence of China and growing numbers of Chinese in Laos and argue that managing this relationship may well be the biggest challenge facing the Lao authorities and is the most likely cause of any legitimacy crisis in Laos. Lao people are making life decisions with increasing reference to China and responding in ways that are marked by pragmatism as Chinese influence increases. Fundamentally, the rise of China in Laos is leading to a renewed sense of Laos and Laoness. This provides the Lao authorities with a renewed sense of legitimacy, as they are expected to do something for the population in response to rising adverse influences from China. Whether they will do anything meaningful to address these concerns is another question.

New Social Movements as Postmodern Challanges To Neoliberalism and Representative Democracy

In this article, the relationship between new social movements, representative democracy and neoliberalism is examined. Starting with student protests in Europe and the United State, the late 1960s have witnessed the emegence of new social movements. Ecological, anti-nuclear, feminist, student, anti-racist, and LGBTI+ protests all have been examined with the scope of the new social movements paradigm. The remarkable protest wave of the 1970s has been followed by contemporary movements in different forms like the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement. Although these movements differ in terms of issues they deal with and goals they seek, they have a lot in common. Unlike the old movements like labour protests, these new movements primarily focus on postmaterial issues. Postmaterial identity demands and rights of these movements conflict with material demands of neoliberal governments. Furthermore, modern democracies fail to address these issues. Representative democracy is seen as an obstacle to political participation. On the other hand, postmodernism is a suitable concept to explain internal discrepancies and dispersion of new social movements. It is argued that (a) the legitimacy crisis of representative democracy and neoliberal response of capitalism to its structural crisis have triggered new social conflicts and movements, (b) these movements differ from old movements in terms of their forms, goals, and demands, (c) new social movements are postmodern.