Three different questions that often get collapsed during constitutional crises.
A crisis can involve political legitimacy, legal authority, and institutional recognition at the same time, but they are not the same thing. Public approval does not create legal office; lawful office does not guarantee political acceptance; and operational recognition depends on institutions acting on authenticated legal instruments.
Legitimacy concerns whether populations and institutions accept authority as rightful or appropriate. It can move faster than formal law and can diverge sharply across factions.
Authority depends on constitutional and statutory rules, officeholding, valid delegations, controlling judgments, and transaction-specific powers. Media calls, diplomatic statements, or popular belief cannot substitute for those rules.
Recognition is where the two systems become operational. Agencies, courts, states, security organizations, banks, contractors, and foreign counterparts must decide which instruments and officeholders they will act on. Durable conflict emerges when those institutions stop converging on one legal order.
Use these findings as mechanism-level synthesis. Historical cases are not templates, scenario ranges are not forecasts, and present-tense legal or institutional claims require current verification.