However much they might argue that it has not acquired power 'fairly or legitimately or legally?
As has been the 'justification and rationale for supporting opposition forces in countries such as Syria, Libya and Venezuela and other countries?
If we use that as a basis for legitimising 'a people's revolution' and the overthrow of this and that government.
Then why the need for 'the ballot box and free and fair elections', each time after 'a people's revolution' has been assisted to overthrow this and that government?
Is it simply or mostly about 'legitimising' the rule of the new elites?
Taken to its logical conclusion, it does not make much sense when seriously analysed.
Within the context of morality, law and legitimacy', the act of 'the people rising up and overthrowing the government - a government which will always or most times have the support of sections of the population - will always be of questionable validity.
Like times of war, it will give rise to a suspension, if not dissolution of the norms, legal, moral and socio-political, which precede the uprising.
To be continued!
No comments:
Post a Comment