> Surely you mean the only levers of political power aside from consent Other than the fact that no nation-state/government was created by consent of "the peop

> Surely you mean the only levers of political power aside from consent Other than the fact that no nation-state/government was created by consent of "the people", there is a philosophical argument that consent to giving political power to "ruling class" or "elected officials" to be ruled over is impossible. In other words, consent excludes political power like consent excludes rape. Meaning you cannot consent to being raped being once you consent, it is no longer rape. The same thing with politics. Consenting to political power makes it no longer political power. It's like you need parental power to force your kids to eat broccoli, but no parental power exists to force your kids to eat ice cream because they consent to it. Finally, nation-states/governments don't work in that idealized manner. Things works top-down, not bottom-up. Pretty much what you've been brainwashed to believe, it's not true. > If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done. You can get a lot done without the mandate from the electorate. Getting a lot done has nothing to do with mandates but the effectiveness of the state organs. > For governments without a popular mandate or support, or who are insecure in the support they may have, well, the result often isn't pretty. Actually, governments "with popular mandates" are what you want to really worry about. It's those governments that tend to commit genocide, nuke cities and commit all kinds of horrors. When a leader starts claiming he has the mandate of the people, that's when you should watch out. BTW, "populate mandates" are also created by force/deception.