What is the difference between a bandit gang and a government?

There is an anecdote that mentions Saint Augustin in legal education. Alexander the Great asks a captured pirate why he invaded the seas with malicious intent. The pirate said, “Why are you taking over the whole world? Since I do this job with a small ship, I am called a bandit or pirate, and when you do the same job with a large fleet, you are called an emperor.”

This anecdote is taught to law students to show the difference between a bandit gang and the state. In his book The City of God, Saint Augustin wrote the following sentences in relation to the subject. “What are kingdoms but great banditry? Because bandit gangs are also small kingdoms, aren't they? The gang is made up of men, ruled by the authority of a prince, organized by the charter of confederation, and the plundered are divided according to an agreed-upon law. If, by removing the excluded people, this scourge grows large enough to hold large territories, build houses, claim cities, and subdue peoples, it is openly called a kingdom; because now, not with the removal of greed, but with the addition of the irresponsibility of punishment, the real situation has become clear to him.”

Our question is: What is the difference between a bandit gang and a government? This first question brings to mind the following questions. What is the difference between bandit gang rules and law rules? What is the difference between the legitimacy of the bandit gang and the legitimacy of the state?

In this article, we will talk about sovereignty, legitimacy, rules and power. The famous British historian Arnold Toynbee refers to Mustafa Kemal Pasha as the "Turkish rebellion leader" in his books about recent Turkish history. In translation, we can call it a rebel leader, a rebel leader or a rebel leader. What Toynbee draws attention to here is that Mustafa Kemal was a person who rebelled against an established and legitimate order. At that time, they had a legal legitimacy whether the sovereignty was in the sultan or the occupation forces. However, the National Forces and their leader Mustafa Kemal Pasha did not have a legal basis when they first set out. Mustafa Kemal Pasha was someone who had no legal authority on the day he resigned from the military. If they failed, the Kuvay-i Milliye would go down in history as a gang and Mustafa Kemal as a gang leader. As a matter of fact, Mustafa Kemal, who knew the importance of legal legitimacy, named his struggle as "the will and demand of the nation" from the very first step. Congresses were held to create the institutional structure, the Assembly was convened, and the legal order was established. The source of legitimacy, namely the nation, has always been referred to in the resolutions taken in the Congresses and the Assembly.

When the sovereignty of the state is considered as an abstract concept, we can talk about the existence of an authority taken from the people, lineage or God. However, when we concretize, this authority appears before us as public practices such as recruiting soldiers, collecting taxes, and establishing courts. Legal institutional structures are more important than where the authority comes from. It is sufficient that the authority is formally legal, it may not be legal or fair. Authority; In the historical process, it has evolved from past to present in forms such as tribe, tribe, feudalism, kingdom, empire, papacy, caliphate, republic, democratic republic. The authority of the pope, the caliph, or the legitimacy of the monarchs they authorized, could not be questioned for centuries. Every act of the sovereign is called the commandment of God. Today, we all know that a divine will cannot be the legitimate source of sovereignty. Here we can find the answer to the question of what is the difference between the legitimacy of the bandit gang and the legitimacy of the state. The legitimacy of the state is institutional and generally accepted. Is there any exception? Of course there is, sometimes we can see legitimate sovereign structures that do not represent the universal will and are not generally accepted. Party states and dictatorships are examples of these. They also arrange laws for their own benefit to confirm their legitimacy. Interestingly, on the contrary, it is normal for a bandit gang leader to be more accepted than dictators. We see that gang leaders in history are usually charismatic personalities.

In the TDK dictionary, a bandit is defined as "a person who commits an armed robbery or intercepts a road", and a gang is defined as a "community that has come together to do illegal activities or to intimidate those around them". Both are words with a negative meaning. But there are good gangs like the Robin Hood gang and good bandits like Robin Hood. The Robin Hood bandit gang was doing an illegal business, intercepting, scaring and robbing the English nobles, but distributing their robberies to the poor. The main idea was that the English nobles got rich from the poverty of the people through illegal taxes. So not every bandit gang can do evil. Bandit gangs are not as lawless as we think. It has its own internal rules and gang members strictly adhere to these rules. Some bandit gangs women and girls They do not inflict violence on children, they do not touch honor, they do not touch most of the oppressed and the poor. There are also bandit gangs that do not violate the moral values, customs, traditions and customs of the society. Respect and loyalty to gang authority and hierarchy are important. We can give an example of the ephesus of the Aegean region. These efes who escaped from the law due to a crime they committed and lived in the mountains started the armed struggle of the Kuvay-i Milliye movement. We know that Efes have strict rules within themselves. If there are exceptions, we cannot answer the question of what is the difference between the rules of the bandit gang and the rules of law, in terms of goodness, evil or moral values. The answer to our question is whether these rules are legal. That is, whether it is certified by a legitimate authority. States may have legal but not “good” rules, but the law is the law. For example, adultery is not good in moral and social understanding, but it is not a crime according to our laws.

So, in terms of acceptance (legitimacy) and rules, there is no more distinct difference between a state and a bandit than legal. We then return to our first question. What is the difference between a bandit gang and a government?

There is a law and there are rules, we call these rules norms. Sometimes it comes across as what needs to be done (does, should be done, will be done), and sometimes as things not to do (shouldn't, can't, won't be done). It's like everyone who earns income pays taxes or someone else's property is not taken without permission. However, laws or rules alone are not sufficient to maintain social order. It should be supported by sanctions. Sanctions are an integral part of the law. As we all know, punishments are sanctions. Use of force, confiscation, imprisonment are sanctions. Taking someone else's property without permission is theft, the thief is punished and goes to jail. It is a simple logical relationship. Sanctions come into play when laws are not enforced.

Here we find the answer to our question, the state's ability to impose sanctions is stronger than a bandit gang. We are talking about the way the sanction is implemented, not the norm of the sanction. The sanction is enforced by force. In other words, we see the application of the sanction as forced violence. The state enforces its sanctions with law enforcement forces (military, police, gendarmerie). If the coercive violence of the bandit gang in a place is more than the violence of the state, the authority of the state is no longer there. Therefore, a new authority was formed. This new authority ensures its legitimacy by using force. In some regions, gangs that dominate, collect taxes and recruit soldiers by using more force than the power of the state have been seen in some regions in history. There are also those who turn the power they have gained into sovereignty over time and become legitimate authorities. It was the founders of the USA who broke the military power of the British Empire, which increased the tea tax in Boston. Initially called gangs, the National Forces became a legitimate authority in Anatolia by defeating the military power of the invaders, which applied forced violence. Slave Spartacus conquered a certain region for a period by defeating the Roman armies and ruled there.

The answer to our question; The difference between a bandit gang and the state is that the coercive violence used by the state to impose sanctions is stronger. On the other hand, the hand of the state is heavy, its fist is iron, but its glove should also be velvet. Legal systems are concerned with how to use this iron fist, that is, power, in a competent and controlled manner. In another article, we will discuss how the balance between the strong state and the weak individual can be achieved, that is, the conflict between public interest and individual rights and freedoms, from a Rousseauian point of view.