Proloog legitiimsuse ja arengu juurde

Sõjaks valmistutakse rahuajal. Sisult ilmselt asjakohane, kuid vormilt siiski barbaarne ütlus. Organisatsioonide valdkonnas võiks mõelda nii, et kuigi võib tunduda, et alati on kiire, siis võib olla üsna kindel, et reformides ja kriisides saab aeg teistsuguse tähenduse. Ja seetõttu oleks arukas süsteemsel panustada arengusse. Panustada järjekindlalt, iga päev, sest kui on kiire, siis ei ole aega raamatukokku minna.
Siinviidatu võiks anda motivatsiooni ja vihjeid sellest, millele võiks mõelda “rahu ajal”, sest siis on võimalus mõelda sellest, kes jääb “ellu” ja domineerib kriitilistes oludes.

Kontekstiks:

several organizations 2competing in the same revolution and one eventually emerging dominant is a common phenomenon. Famous examples include the intense competition among the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries before the October Revolution and the struggles between Khomeini’s followers and leftist organizations during the Iranian Revolution. How does a revolutionary organization become the dominant one among competitors? Why do people begin to see one organization as the leader over others?

Kui olukord muutub keeruliseks:

Revolutionary situations are moments of “multiple power” (Tilly, 1978). For an organization to emerge as the leader, a significant portion of the population needs to consent to its power against not only the state but also other organizations. Legitimacy, therefore, is the key concept

Legitiimsuse tähendus selles artiklis:

I define legitimacy as a population’s willingness to follow an entity’s authority because the entity’s actions are seen as appropriate

Autori ambitsioon:

The paper draws upon the insights of political and organizational legitimacy literatures. […] I use the insights of this latter literature along with those of the political legitimacy tradition to identify three processes of legitimation in revolutionary situations: ideological/normative congruence, effective organizational capacity, and accumulation of prestige.

Ikka see keskkond …

It should be noted that ideological, organizational, and leadership factors still operate within a larger environment shaped by political and structural openings, sometimes conferring more advantage on certain actors

Legitiimsuse allhoovused:

Although legitimacy is primarily “normative by conceptual definition” (Gilley, 2006, p. 502), scholarly work has also demonstrated an underlying dimension of “effectiveness.” Lipset (1959, p. 86), for example, defines effectiveness as “the extent to which [a system] satisfies the basic functions of government as defined by the expectations of most members of a society” and claims that “legitimacy is best gained by prolonged effectiveness”

Mõned järeldused:

I have demonstrated that a revolutionary organization can enjoy legitimation through ideological/normative congruence, effective organizational capacity, and accumulation of symbolic capital. […] Legitimation approach to revolutionary organizations can provide novel insights toward a broader research agenda. First, although I have bracketed them here, the issues of how the three processes interact and which one becomes dominant can form a promising research avenue. […] Second, interactions with other processes can form a fruitful line of inquiry. Especially intriguing is how legitimation processes interact with command over resources as there does not seem to be a linear relation. […] Finally, legitimation can also offer better explanations for some old puzzles like Kronstadt, which had been one of the most ardent Bolshevik centers of power before the revolution but rebelled in just 4 years.

Huseyin Rasit (2021) Competing revolutionaries: Legitimacy and leadership in revolutionary situations. The British Journal of Sociology DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12875