Carl Schmitt, a controversial and highly influential political theorist in the 20th century, made a significant impact on the discussion surrounding democracy, sovereignty, and states of emergency. His ideas delve into the limitations and vulnerability of democratic systems and how they are affected during times of crisis.
Schmitt's Critique of Liberal Democracy
At the core of Schmitt's critique is his belief that liberal democracies, with their focus on discussion, consensus, and individual rights, are ill-equipped to handle existential crises and emergencies. According to him, during severe threats, the slow process of parliamentary debate becomes an obstacle to effective decision-making. For Schmitt, politics revolves around the distinction between friend and foe, and democracies that prioritize inclusion and dialogue can blur that distinction, hindering decisive action.
Sovereignty and the Decision
One of Schmitt's most famous statements is: "The sovereign is the one who decides on the exception." This means that the true test of sovereignty lies not in the day-to-day functioning of a state, but in its ability to act decisively during exceptional circumstances, such as a state of emergency. Schmitt argues that the sovereign's power to declare a state of emergency and take necessary measures, even if they contradict established laws, demonstrates the primacy of politics over law and force over justice.
The State of Emergency
Schmitt's concept of the state of emergency is rooted in his belief that governmental and legal systems, no matter how successful, cannot anticipate or handle every possible crisis. During unexpected crises, the sovereign must act outside the legal framework to ensure the survival of the state. Schmitt's position has drawn criticism because, while it recognizes the limitations of legal systems, it also opens the door for anti-democratic and repressive regimes to exploit emergency situations.
Schmitt and the Weimar Republic
Schmitt's theories did not arise in isolation. Witnessing the instability of the Weimar Republic, he grew increasingly disillusioned with the idea of parliamentary democracy. The frequent use of emergency orders during the Weimar period, particularly Article 48, which allowed the president to take emergency measures without parliamentary consent, seemed to confirm Schmitt's views on the inadequacy of liberal democracy and the necessity of sovereign decision-making.
The Double-Edged Sword
While Schmitt's insights into the weaknesses of democratic systems and the nature of political decision-making are valuable, they also come with significant risks. The unchecked power of the sovereign, especially during emergencies, can lead to an authoritarian regime, as history has shown in Schmitt's own Germany. The challenge, therefore, is to acknowledge the limitations of democratic systems without undermining their fundamental values.
