Ideology and Legitimate Legislation: Reassessing an Essential Relationship

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Prof. Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 . Ph.D. Student in Public Law Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In modern societies, legislation can no longer be understood merely as a technical, procedural, or value-neutral enterprise. Law is not only an instrument for regulating social relations but also a reflection of the values, assumptions, and cultural beliefs of a given society. Consequently, law possesses semantic, ethical, and ideological dimensions. Contrary to the conventional view that conceives law as detached from ideology and grounded exclusively in objective rationality, this article argues that legislation devoid of an ideological foundation not only loses its normative legitimacy but also becomes a mechanism for reproducing hidden forms of domination and excluding marginalized social groups.
Within this framework, ideology is not understood as a rigid system of dogmatic beliefs or political prejudices. Rather, it constitutes a normative framework through which society is interpreted, competing social interests are identified, and normative solutions are formulated. Drawing upon the theoretical contributions of scholars such as Louis Althusser, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jürgen Habermas, this study highlights the role of ideology in articulating social interests and facilitating democratic public deliberation. Accordingly, the central research question asks: How can ideology establish a meaningful, legitimate, and critically examinable relationship between diverse social interests and general legal norms, thereby providing the normative foundation for democratic and equitable legislation? Put differently, the article seeks to develop a model in which legislation is conceived not as the production of technical legal rules but as a participatory and ethical process embedded within an open and deliberative ideological framework.
 
Methods
This study adopts an analytical-critical approach to reconceptualize the legislative process beyond conventional legal doctrine through the lens of critical sociology and theories of power. Its conceptual framework draws upon the works of Jürgen Habermas (public deliberation), Pierre Bourdieu (the juridical field and symbolic violence), Louis Althusser (ideology as a mechanism for reproducing the social order), Antonio Gramsci (cultural hegemony), Christoph Möllers (the self-immunity of law), Nancy Fraser (recognition-based justice), and Michel Foucault (power/knowledge). The analysis employs key theoretical concepts—including ideological translation, the right to justification, symbolic violence, hegemonic translation, and structural silence—to demonstrate that legislative processes are, in practice, manifestations of ideological contestation rather than merely products of formal legal rationality. Through a systematic analysis of theoretical literature, illustrative examples, and core conceptual propositions, the article presents a coherent account of the active role of ideology in constructing a legitimate, inclusive, and adaptable legal order.
 
Findings
The primary finding of this study is that law is inherently ideological rather than ideologically neutral. Law is not simply a body of impartial rules designed to maintain social order; rather, it represents the translation of particular interests, narratives, and perspectives into universal legal concepts. Fundamental legal notions such as justice, order, security, equality, and the common good are transformed into legal language through ideological processes.
From Bourdieu's perspective, law functions as a symbolic language through which the prevailing social order is institutionalized and reproduced. Likewise, Althusser conceptualizes law as part of the state's ideological apparatuses that legitimize and reproduce relations of domination. The article further argues that claims of legal neutrality frequently conceal conservative ideological assumptions. This tendency is particularly evident in societies characterized by entrenched gender, class, and ethnic inequalities, where the absence of an explicit and critically examined ideological framework results in the structural exclusion of marginalized experiences and perspectives.
In this context, Rainer Forst's theory of the right to justification assumes particular significance. Law can be regarded as legitimate only when its normative foundations can be publicly justified through conditions of equal and inclusive deliberation—a requirement that cannot be fulfilled without a participatory ideological framework. The study also warns that within neoliberal governance, justice is frequently reduced to considerations of efficiency, accountability, and managerial performance. Such a development contributes to the technocratization of law while marginalizing its ethical, cultural, and social dimensions. Consequently, the experiences and claims of disadvantaged groups—including women, ethnic minorities, and lower socio-economic classes—can become part of legal discourse only when legal language is informed by an open, ethically grounded, and critically contestable ideological framework.
 
Conclusion
This article concludes that legitimate and democratic legislation is possible only when it is grounded in a transparent, participatory, and rational ideological framework. The ideal model of legislation is one in which ideological assumptions are explicit and open to critical scrutiny, meaningful public participation is institutionalized throughout the legislative process, and the legal order remains continuously subject to reflection, revision, and reform. Accordingly, legislation without ideology is either normatively empty or inevitably becomes an instrument for reproducing concealed structures of domination.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Adams, I. (1989). Political ideology today. Manchester University Press.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Brothers.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays (B. Brewster, Trans.). New Left Books.
Bennett, W. L. (1977). The growth of knowledge in mass belief studies: An epistemological critique. American Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 465–500. DoI: 10.2307/2110757
Bourdieu, P. (1987). The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal, 38(5), 805–853.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. MIT Press.
Cabanis, P.-J.-G. (1798). Rapports du physique et du moral de l’homme. Crapelet.
Carbonnier, J. (2001). Flexible droit. LGDJ.
Delmas-Marty, M. (2004). Trois défis pour un droit mondial. Seuil.
Dabirnia, A., Shojaei, A., & Momen, M. (2025). The pendulum of constitutionalism in the interaction between constituent power and constitutional law (With a view to the U.S. legal system). Journal of Legal Studies, 17(1), 201–232. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2024.49074.5061 [In Persian].
Delmas-Marty, M. (2006). Ordering pluralism: A conceptual framework for understanding the transnational legal world. Hart Publishing.
Destutt de Tracy, A.-L.-C. (1801). Projets d'éléments d'idéologie à l'usage des écoles centrales de la République française. Didot.
Destutt de Tracy, A.-L.-C. (1804). Éléments d'idéologie: Troisième partie, Logique. Courcier.
Destutt de Tracy, A.-L.-C. (1815). Éléments d'idéologie: IVe et Ve parties, Traité de la volonté et de ses effets. Courcier.
Destutt de Tracy, A.-L.-C. (1992). Éléments d’idéologie. Fayard.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. Verso.
Feuer, L. S. (1975). Ideology and the ideological struggle: Science and society. Science & Society, 39(3), 253–256.
Forst, R. (2007). Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung: Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Suhrkamp.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
Frankenberg, G. (2008). Critical comparisons: Re-thinking comparative law. Harvard International Law Journal, 50(1), 1–50.
Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a "post-socialist" age. New Left Review, (212), 68–93.
Fraser, N. (2003). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the "postsocialist" condition. Routledge.
Garapon, A. (2001). Bien juger: Essai sur le rituel judiciaire. Odile Jacob.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, D. (1976). Form and substance in private law adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 89(8), 1685–1778.
Kennedy, E. (1978). A philosophical history of ideology: From Destutt de Tracy to Marx. Martinus Nijhoff.
Kennedy, E. (1979). Ideology in the "Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française. Journal of the History of Ideas, 40(2), 353–358. DoI: 10.2307/2709117
Leterrier, S.-A. (1995). L'institution des sciences morales (1795-1850). L'Harmattan.
Lochak, D. (2006). Le droit et la règle: Sociologie juridique et analyse critique. La Découverte.
Loewenstein, K. (1953). Political power and the governmental process. University of Chicago Press.
Luhmann, N. (1993). Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 1 (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867).
Marx, K. (2008). The eighteenth brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Wildside Press. (Original work published 1852).
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. International Publishers.
McClosky, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58(2), 361–382. DoI: 10.2307/1952828
Möllers, C. (2008). The possibility of normative legal theory. Ratio Juris, 21(1), 1–22.
Moradkhani, F. (2020). The hidden layers of the constitution. Journal of Legal Studies, 12(4), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2020.36648.3750 (In Persian).
Naess, A. (1956). Truth as conceived by those who are not professional philosophers. Scandinavian University Books.
Nelson, L. (1977). Beliefs, behavior, and unconscious processes. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 7(3), 571–583.
Ost, F. (1988). Le temps du droit. LGDJ.
Ost, F. (1999). Le droit comme un système. Presses Universitaires de France.
Ost, F., & van de Kerchove, M. (2002). De la pyramide au réseau: Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis.
Salehi, H., & MirMohammadSadeghi, M. (2024). Legislation in a religious republic. Journal of Legal Studies, 16(4), 315–346. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2024.49195.5083 [In Persian].
Roucek, J. S. (1944). Sociology and the problem of ideology. American Journal of Sociology, 49(6), 480–486.
Santos, B. de Sousa. (2002). Toward a new legal common sense: Law, globalization, and emancipation. Butterworths LexisNexis.
Santos, B. de Sousa. (2009). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies. Verso.
Sartori, G. (1969). Politics, ideology, and belief systems. American Political Science Review, 63(2), 398–411.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics