These days, processing the news is sheer mental pain. The latest example is the suggestion of a real-life version of the ‘Hunger Games’ film series, under the headline ‘US government considers participation in citizenship reality TV show’. This revelling in the pain and misery of others, this joy in humiliating others, is perverse.

Meanwhile, people are dying in Ukraine from Russian drone attacks, while Netanyahu is pushing ahead with ethnic cleansing and Trump is dreaming of a ‘Freedom Zone’ in Gaza. It feels as if we’re in the wrong movie. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for two of these men, the latter is a convicted felon who is abolishing American democracy by installing a one-man dictatorship.

The world is run by criminals. So why isn’t their legitimacy being questioned?

I can no longer listen to the misguided justification, ‘But they were democratically elected‘. Democracy does not entail the dictatorship of a majority or self-appointed billionaire-elites. After World War II, the modern understanding of democracy has evolved to include all the people of a nation, as everyone has dignity that must be preserved and protected by the state. This is how where the rule of law is abolished, democracy ceases to exist.

Criminals and their supporters are not interested in creating a sense of common purpose; they are interested in the emotional legitimization of control, surveillance and polarization. Their legitimization stems from myths, fabrications and conspiracy narratives — from the ‘Russian world’ to ‘MAGA’. Discourses of exclusion, such as restricting media freedom and muting or silencing independent institutions, ranging from intimidating judges to de-funding Harvard, play a decisive role here.

Ideologically underpinned state violence replaces communicative rationality, hostile stereotyping replaces public dialogue, the diversity of voices is replaced by personality cult, trust is replaced by fear.

In his deliberative theory of democracy, Habermas defines legitimacy as the justified validity of political decisions based on discourse and procedures involving the free, equal and argumentative agreement of all those affected, all participants of a discourse. Accordingly, political decisions are only legitimate if they are justified rationally in public discourse and are open to approval; they cannot be justified solely through power, tradition or the majority principle.

In ‘Facticity and Validity’ (1992, see pp. 349 ff.), Habermas argues that a legal system must be democratically legitimized to be both binding and just. Legals systems are justified by procedure, not by status. The aforementioned offenders override national and international legal systems, circumvent and deconstruct them, and are therefore not legitimized politically in a democratic sense. I will leave this argument there. It is a good start to be able to justify: ‘You are not legitimate leaders’.