You are correct, it's possible to further expand that definition of legitimacy, to include de-facto legitimacy (I am the guy in charge, I might be in charge because I rule through fear and force, but since I am the guy in charge, I am legitimate.)
My point is that it doesn't make much sense to contract the definition of legitimacy. At a minimum, if a government has the consent of the governed, it is legitimate.
If it does not, well, we can split hairs about whether or not being a warlord, a king, or some other kind of despot counts.
My point is that it doesn't make much sense to contract the definition of legitimacy. At a minimum, if a government has the consent of the governed, it is legitimate.
If it does not, well, we can split hairs about whether or not being a warlord, a king, or some other kind of despot counts.