Pamięć o początkach ustanowienia ładu politycznego a jego prawomocność
Memory of the beginnings of constituting of political order and its legitimacy

Summary/Abstract: The present paper tries to compare three types of legitimacy of political order as a result of their different historical origins, namely: monarchical, republican and democratic. The author’s main thesis is that all types of legitimacy are not void of difficulties. In the early stages of development of human societies heads of families elected or submitted to political authority. Social contract theorists like Locke and Pufendorf presumed that all men are born free, thus every legitimate power has its basis in consent or contract. Patriarchal theory of political authority rejected both that premise and conclusion. There were no historical evidences of such a contract between the people and their rulers. Even as a model of legitimization of democratic government it doesn’t work because of its vagueness. On the other hand monarchists and republicans should remember that many famous regimes have had cruel and violent beginnings. Some of them afterwards acquired legitimacy by just and stable reigning. What is then the difference between citizens of a welfare state and subjects of well governed constitutional monarchies and republics? Nowadays it’s hardly to see any reasons to feel pride to be a voter in mass democracy because victory in election means only that actual majority elected one group of politicians instead of another one. How can they manage to protect good and durable law‑which is an universal aim of all civilized societies? The real scope of rights and liberties are diminished in consequence of government over‑legislation. Perhaps the right to be well governed is more important than universal suffrage?

• Details
• Contents