Democracy does not make a government legitimate. Nothing does.

Many people still believe the ritual of “democracy” is legitimate for some of the following reasons:

- It is fair, since people are allowed to choose between various options by “voting”.

- By voting, the majority of people are agreeing to the results of the referendum, what the politicians enact as “law”, etc.

- As the majority of people agreed (or consented) to the democratic government’s actions by voting for those in the democratic government, this is where its legitimacy and its right to implement its laws comes from. This is also referred to as “The Consent of the Governed” or “The Social Contract”. 

These myths can be easily disproved, which I will demonstrate below: 

The majority of people agreeing to something doesn’t make it fair, right, or just. As an example, the majority of the southern states in the United States supported the concept and practice of slavery, and laws were implemented and enforced to propagate and protect this practice. The majority of the people in Nazi Germany also voted for the Nazi party and for the parties that allowed the Nazis to form a coalition to enact its laws. To use a much more recent example, gays in the U.S. were only just granted the right to marry in all 50 states by the Supreme Court less than two years ago. 

Should they not have had that right until the state governments and/or the Supreme Court deem it is acceptable, since the people in the state governments are elected by the majority of the people, and the Supreme Court Justices are appointed and confirmed by politicians who are elected by the majority? Another related question is: why is it okay to refuse to marry gays as long as gay marriage is not “legalized” by some group of politicians, but all of a sudden not okay when it is “legalized” by another group of politicians? 

In addition, a majority, or even a vast majority, of people believing in something doesn’t make it true. Going back to my example of slavery, the practice of slavery was widely believed to be acceptable in ancient times, even though it never was and never will be. Right now, many people believe the ritual of “democracy” legitimizes “democratic governments”, even though it never has, never can, and never will. The act of “voting” does not give those politicians in government the right to force anyone to obey them just because they write it on a piece of paper and call it “law”. They can write anything they wish on paper and call it “law”; it doesn’t mean that “law” should automatically be obeyed. 

If you’re thinking: “If the majority of people don’t agree with some of the government’s laws, they can vote for politicians in the coming elections who will pass laws they do agree with”, that is missing the point entirely, as that thought doesn’t address whether those laws should be obeyed and/or enforced in the meantime simply because they are “laws”. If a law is immoral or unjust and you reply with “It can be repealed or changed when other politicians are voted in”, that is like saying: “Yes, it’s bad to steal, but the person who was stolen from can always recover what was stolen from him or her.” Does the fact that he can get back what was stolen from him make it okay for the thief to steal from him in the first place? Does the fact that a bad law can be changed later make it okay for that bad law to be enforced in the meantime? 

People have the right to defend themselves and retrieve stolen property regardless of what “the law” says, making it irrelevant as well.