Alejandro Toledo was elected president of Peru in a contest that was more or less "democratic" as in other countries in our América. He began with a great opportunity after a decade or so of authoritarian, repressive, and largely undemocratic rule by Alberto Fujimori and his enforcer Vladimiro Montesinos.

Like Vicente Fox in Mexico or Ricardo Lagos in Chile or Lucio Gutierrez in Ecuador, he quickly spilled his mandate by surrendering the self-determination of his country to impositions from outside and from above: the economic model imposed by foreign powers.

And in doing so, Toledo has lost - according to public opinion surveys - the support of 91 percent of Peruvians.

Your question hits at a very tough call: When does a "democratically elected" government, if ever, cease to be legitimate?

And the soon-to-follow question: Who, if anyone, has a right to challenge the legitimacy of such a government?

We have seen, for example, in recent years in Venezuela efforts by the elites to topple an elected government. The questions presented by upper-class attempted coups are easier: of course they are unacceptable.

But what of revolts "from below" such as the Mexican Zapatistas or the indigenous movements of a majority-indigenous country such as Ecuador or Bolivia, or the challenge made on New Year's to Peru's government by a small military-citizen armed insurgency? Or, for that matter, the 50-years-war of the guerrillas in Colombia against many "democratically elected" governments of different political parties?

Against upper-class coup attempts, I think it's pretty fair to say they are never legitimate.

But when it comes to insurgent movements from below to topple a government that so many of the people at the bottom of the economic pile consider to be illegitimate, I think those deserve a look-see and the kind of attention we can offer them. (That attention includes the kind of scrutiny that Teo Ballve offers above, in this thread, as to whether the insurgents themselves walk their talk or are a desireable alternative.)

To me, it's not an open-and-shut case, as in, "if he was democratically elected he is therefore legitimate no matter what he does." A leader is always legitimate against the impositions from above or from outside. But against the bases of his own people? I think we have to look at those struggles on a case by case basis. To me, it's an open question. And part of what Authentic Journalism does is to provide a fairer look at what rebels-from-below are saying about the illegtimacy of even elected governments in a time in which "elections" themselves are increasingly media-propped farces.