Reexamining the relationship between legitimacy and acceptability in governance for the transition to an efficient model

Explaining the origin of political legitimacy, as a fundamental issue in political philosophy, is a fundamental criterion in the classification of government systems and the formulation of the nature of power. This research, adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, conducts a comparative analysis of legitimacy-building paradigms and focuses on the central contemporary challenge, namely the quality of the interaction between divine sovereignty and human will. In response to this issue, the present article formulates and defends the theory of “divine legitimacy-qualitative acceptability” as an autonomous analytical framework. This paradigm, which is based on the metaphysical principle of monotheism in legislative lordship, rejects any constitutive role for the general will in the field of legitimacy and defines it as something transcendent, ontological, and exclusively delegated through divine appointment. The main innovation of this theory is revealed in the area of ​​acceptability; Where, by undermining the quantitative logic and the majority principle, it also considers the condition for the actualization of government to be a quality-oriented matter. On this basis, the establishment of the rule of law is not dependent on public consent, but rather on the formation of a "hard core of elites"; a coherent, faithful minority with strategic insight who act as carriers and researchers of divine will. By clarifying the essential duality between the "principle of legitimacy" and the "condition for actualization", this research demonstrates how the qualitative logic has dominated the quantitative logic at all levels and reveals the essential distinction of this model from competing models, especially