How Do We View Illegitimate Governments That Do Not Have The Consent of the Governed?

[Blackhatjack]

Well it depends.

When they serve our purposes, we are quick to recognize them and open diplomatic relations. Even when the changeover in power is by military coup.

When they act against our interests we tend to question the legitimacy of the election process, and withhold diplomatic recognition of the new Administration and its leaders.

When Chavez was 'democratically elected' as President of Venezuela, and then illegally temporarily ousted from office, our government immediately recognized the coup leaders as the legitimate leaders of that government. Of course in a few weeks, after massive demonstrations by the people in the streets, Chavez was reinstalled as President --and our government dropped into a silent mode.
For the interested, our MSM did their part to highlight small groups of protestors that were in favor of ousting Chavez, and of course they minimized and failed to show photographs of the massive protests in the streets in favor of reinstalling Chavez.

Another example. When the government of Pakistan was overthrown, and General Musharruf installed himself as Leader, the US acknowledged him as the legitimate Leader of that nation. We had a prime interest in making Pakistan an ally in the fight in Afghanistan. He still has not sat for an election in that country. Without elections, can there be consent of the governed?

We do not like the President of Iran who was elected by his people. We do like Caulderon who was installed as President of Mexico, amongst all kinds of election fraud and protests in the street.
And as a government we hold WH State Dinners for tyrants and dictators(ie. Uzbekistan) and provide military assistance to dictatorial killers like Saddam.

The point is: If we are a democracy, founded on democratic principles, and we are intent on spreading that democratic freedom to other countries and their people, then should we not withhold and grant our approval of other governments based upon democratic principles? And should governments that are led by individuals who never gained the 'consent' of the governed, be viewed as suspect?

Certainly, there is no explanation for our inconsistent conduct in this area except to say we talk a good game about promoting democracy, but if a country is strategically important to the interests of the US we are willing to do business with them, and the consent of the governed seems to be a mere afterthought.

Any government can state it is a democracy, but without the consent of the governed it will never be.

[PreacherCasey]

1. Great Post, thank you. You're

right on. It's not what you say that counts, it's what you do. The hypocrisy of our government's foreign policy is disgusting, and not JUST under Republicans. I think our greatest hope for peace and changing world opinion of the US is to stop subverting the UN and become a sincere "global" citizen. We need leaders who truly view ALL people as being created equal, not just "Americans". We are all human beings. I don't know why people can't see past labels and generalizations. The photos of Iraqi children blown open by US bombs affect me just as much as if it was an American baby. At the end of the day (literally and metaphorically), all these divisions are petty bullshit anyway.

[Kagemusha]

2. Isn't the US the result of a revolution against one such government?

Just pointing that out.

[PreacherCasey]

3. I'm not sure of your point.

The OP was about the US backing/chastising illegitimate regimes based on the ability of our government to manipulate the illegitimate regime, instead of chastising ALL of them. If we purport to believe in Democracy, and in fact BE one, we can not support illegitimate regimes around the world no matter how much it would be in our economic interests.

[Blackhatjack]

5. History lesson time! England had King George, and we had no representation...

... remember the onerous taxation without representation? Boston Tea Party?

As much as the revolutionary war was about the 'destiny of a great nation', it began over an argument that the rule of England over the colonies was without the consent of the 'governed.' Taxation just clarified the issue.

However, this has little to do with the point of the OP. If we are a democracy, and we promote democracy, then we must be consistent in promoting those democratic ideals in our conduct of relations with other illegitimate leaders and their governments. IT cannot be be distilled down to economic interests in favor of the US only.

[dubykc]

4. Much of our support for illegitimate governments seems to...

boil down to "the enemy of our enemy is our friend", which has historically come back to bite us in the ass.

[Blackhatjack]

6. When you make your Enemy your Ally, You have to watch your back!

When dictators kill thousands of their citizens indiscriminately, there has to be a line drawn over what conduct we will condone. It does not mean we cannot work with them to change their ways, but we cannot pretend that such atrocities do not exist and have a State Dinner for them in the White House without damaging our credibility with the rest of the world.

[htuttle]

7. We fought a war last decade to re-install a monarch

Don't think Jefferson would have foreseen that one. Franklin, maybe would have though -- he was kind of a pessimist.

Does our own government have the consent of the governed anymore, or is it just the 'apathy of the governed' that gives it legitimacy nowdays?

[porphyrian]

8. I'll kick that. - n/t

[PreacherCasey]

9. kick for a good topic. n/t

[Selatius]

10. Unfortunately, doing so will anger Wall Street.

If you will note, we do hundreds of billions of dollars worth of business each year with totalitarian China. We have major allies in the form of the House of Saud and that dictator Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

We should not claim ourselves to be a democracy when only a few people make decisions running our economy, and thus our government.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Some of your examples are better than others.

You're dead right about both Chaves and Musharraf: the former was elected and has a strong democratic mandate (much as I dislike him); the latter wasn't.

Ahmadinejad *was* elected, but the election that got him in was anything but free and fair - many of his opponents were prevented from campaigning or running by the state - and the people who actually run Iran are the completely unelected Council of Guardians. Caulderon's election had some question marks over it, but not as severe as was generally made out to be the case on DU.

Only recognising those leaders who were democratically elected sounds good on paper, but leads to vast amounts of unecessary suffering in practice - dealing with a tyrant often does far more good than cold-shouldering them. Conversely, having a democratic mandate is not a licence to violate human rights - Milosevic, Putin, Olmert and of course Bush were all democratically elected.

On the other hand, I do wish that the US and the rest of the first world made such decisions more on altruistic grounds and less on those of national interest.

[Herman74]

12. I've wondered about how to view unelected governments since

...December, 2000