Legitimacy vs. Power

            Power is not something that is just automatically given to a person or organization, but rather it is developed through association with established sources of strength and legitimacy. Ian Hurd makes this same argument in his article, “Legitimacy, Power and the Symbolic life of the UN Security Council”. Hurd argues that it is through a state’s association with legitimate organizations and their behavior within the international system that they gain the respect of other actors and that symbols are in fact a source of power themselves. The United Nations Security Council is not an exception from this need for legitimacy and according to Hurd, “In the absence of legitimacy, the council would have to rely on outright coercion as it’s only instrument of power and would therefore cease to exist” (Hurd 2002). In an anarchic system, states are constantly yearning to gain any form of power but perhaps they are after the wrong thing. Perhaps the most valuable quality for a state to obtain is not raw power but rather legitimacy.

            Keeping this theory in mind, one can make the argument that power in fact does not exist without the appropriate amount of legitimacy associated with it. Hurd claims that power through association is equivalent to raw power, and even states with a minimal amount of influence in organizations are granted with respect and power in the international system. For example, Hurd states, “Even if the real increase in decision or influence due to winning a non-permanent seat is minimal, the jump in status is huge” (Hurd). Thus, in terms of the anarchic international system, legitimacy is power itself. Thinking logically, what does a strong military and large amount of capital mean to a nation that has absolutely no influence or respect among other nations in the world order? Legitimacy simply acts as the medium through which power can be distributed over nations. In a nutshell, legitimacy is the difference between a nation with the capability to become a world power and a nation that already is a world power. Considering that current international system is one of anarchic nature, states are constantly competing with each other for power and influence over one another. However, a state’s only true source of power over others is the respect and perhaps fear from its fellow actors in the system. Take the United States for example, we had the capital and military power necessary to be considered a world power, however we were not viewed as one until after WWII. Our involvement in the United Nations, an organization credited with supporting the allied powers in WWII, along with the military power displayed by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan legitimized the United States as a nation of force capable of world power. The lack of a single global hegemon provides for a system built upon a basis of competition among players, one that can only be won via the legitimacy to back up the raw power that a nation possesses.