"What happens when the gravest of political acts - the decision to kill - is taken without the citizens' assent? That is the paradox of what I call the silent mandate: leaders treat the people's silence, which is structurally imposed, as if it were consent, turning absence into acquiescence. It is the point where democracy keeps its name but loses its meaning."
"If conflict is the most serious act a political community can undertake, shouldn't it face a higher bar than ordinary political decisions in a democratic state? And even if a conflict seems to meet the conditions of a 'just war' - if such a thing exists - it may still be illegitimate if those in whose name it is fought were never asked."
War is rooted in human instincts and myth but modern media makes its realities unmistakable through images of destruction and atrocities. War represents the breakdown of moral and political order, where legal and social norms collapse and human life is devalued or transformed. Responsibility to restrain violence persists even amid devastation. Democratic systems claim shared responsibility through consent and representation, yet structural barriers can leave citizens silent. Leaders can convert this structural silence into assumed consent, creating a silent mandate that undermines democratic legitimacy. Decisions to wage war require a higher democratic threshold, and wars fought without explicit assent risk illegitimacy.
Read at Aeon
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]