Analysis of Carl Schmitts View of Democracy - Essay Example

Analysis of Carl Schmitt’s view of Democracy Analysis of Carl Schmitt’s view of Democracy Democracy entailsthe rule by the people for the people. The concept of democracy is indeed an extraordinary idea and can refer to a truly revolutionary idea in the human affair’s history (Schumpeter, 2013). A government of the people by the say of the people is an ideal way to go and is inspiring, emancipatory, and revolutionary. However, where there is endless curving of democratic ways the situation can be manipulative, cynical, and ugly. Instead of a smooth people oriented governance characterized by political equality and people’s empowerment, democracy curve in to domination by the power of elites and dominant classes shy of other people’s lives. In such a case, the rule by the people emerges largely as a symbolic sideshow whereas the actual exercise of political power happens behind the scenes. Carl Schmitt offers a suitable platform of analyzing the validity of democracy especially in his book the concept of politics. Many describe Schmitt as having attempted to drive a thick wedge between liberalism and democracy. They see Schmitt effort as trying to undercut the assumption that the rational discourse and the legal formalism would be the basis of legitimacy. Schmitt’s contribution to the political theory characterizes the advancing view that genuine politics was irreducible to the view of socio-economic conflicts and thus unconstrained by people’s normative considerations. The view of Schmitt is that the essence of politics is indeed a battle to grave between a friend and an enemy. Many of the analysts of Schmitt works during his era saw them as an opportunistic embrace of the Nazism, that if embraced in the current world setting then everybody would kill each other (Schmitt, 2008). The Schmitt’s notion of the political ground tends to dissociate democracy from liberalism thus more controversy arises from the constituted, parliamentary legislation, and rule destined practices of general elections that mostly characterize the modern democracy ordinary workings. In this perception, the major question stems on Schmitt radical perspective of the world constituted the democratic politics in the Weimer Republic. Schmitt took democratic ruling as the self-rule of the people thus the decisions that rulers make represents and articulates the will of the people (Schmitt, 2008). However, his view of the principle of democracy opens to different competing interpretations. What many people need to understand that the political practice forms an identity of the sovereign will of the citizen and is not a simple task thus must be safeguarded in an act of own identification of power prowess. Thus, when key decisions on politics emerge as a result of the majority vote, there is identification of the needs of the majority, and the other citizens should obey regardless of whether they voted with the majority or not. The question raised by Schmitt is that if the majority can overrule the minority, then why should it be possible for a minority to represent the will of the citizens? Minorities have their will, and Schmitt suggested that if they used dictatorship to dominate over the majority that would be democratic as it represents the political rule depending on the peoples’ will. The major question here on the democratic base would be if people borrow from the Schmitt view that also the minority can rule, then the world would be full of killings in fights in the effort of identification of prowess (Schmitt, 2008). In legal formality, there must be a characteristically democratic atmosphere and the theory of democracy must be evident to fulfill the will of the people (Schumpeter, 2013). The atmosphere must exist without considering those who voted against as foes, but considering them as citizens with different views. In Schmitt apparent efforts to part way with democracy idea, he fails to explain the reason democratic tradition considers institutional provisions such as elections of officials. Additionally, he fails to explain why they also fail to consider an extension of the franchise as characteristically democratic. Schmitt in the constitution theory argues that the idea of legitimate political governance that must appeal to the peoples’ will, grounds in the mercy of political equality. The idea of political equality commits people to deny the natural differences in the status among people. In this regard, no citizen bears more right than the other to hold political power. Citizens, therefore, should have equal participation as far as practically achievable in manifestation of political rule. In a democratic setting, it is necessary to elect public officials who have special powers not shared by everyone, and their appointment must be through periodical elections. The issue of political equality outlines the reason some forms of will formation bear more intimate association with democracy than other formations. However, in Schmitt concession of the value of equality has a twist. Schmitt argues that political equity that constitutes a certain political community cannot base on the unlimited equality of every citizen as moral persons. Thus, he claimed that every political community relies on a constitutive distinction that lies on taking sides as friends and foes or insiders and outsiders (Schmitt, 2008). In this setting, Schmitt defines democracy as a governmental system of the ruler and the ruled. The idea calls for the community to have a shared substantive identity as a whole in deciding who the enemies are in an effort to form a political identity. In the current world status, such ideologies would lead to mass killings in the fight for superiority. Contrary to the general assumption that those living together as legitimately recognized citizens as per the constituted democratic setting do not share a common political identity, then Schmitt idea might prove valid. He argues that identity of rulers to the ruled will might no longerobtain, thus democratic state would no longer be democratic. In such a case, the majority rule might degenerate into illegal form of indirect rule of a social faction to another. With this effect, sovereign dictatorship might be necessary to create substantive equity grounded on illegal operation of those governed in democratic politics (Schmitt, 2008). Schmitt argues that the creation of a democratic constitution should not be thought in the lines of social contracts as it presupposes the erstwhile existence of people as a political unity. In this case, if people had not already existed, it would be possible generate a constitution and constitution not from the people themselves for themselves would not be a democratic constitution. Thus, people’s constituent power should be inalienable in such a situation. In his arguments, Schmitt recognizes it would unbelievable to try to assume that written constitution stands for a conscious choice made by the popular sovereign to all its details. Creation of the governing Weimar constitution in 1918 was because of German’s people revolution. In this example, it expressed the conscious decision of the German people for a republican, democratic, and federal state dedicated to the ideologies of the rule of law. Thus, the system received endowment from the parliamentary system of the government. Later on the system failed to embrace the specific provisions thereby not reflecting the conscious decisions made by popular sovereign. Schmitt argument was that it would be against people’s will, as the constitution would not bear similar normative force as per people’s decisions (Schmitt, 2008). Schmitt position towards Weimer system was ambiguous and displayed his interpretation of dictatorial powers of the Weimer Republic president. In this case, embracing the president to an independent dictator, Schmitt defended his interpretation of president authority as a subject to constitutional rights and not discretionary interference by the executive. In another instance, Schmitt opposed to the idea that constitution require protection by the constitutional court. In his argument, he said the move would by chance either limit itself to the cases that are uncontroversial where the law offers the determinate guidance or else should take the responsibility to identify the political distinctiveness of the citizens (Schmitt, 2008). Schmitt’s view in the case that a court assume responsibility, would amount to an unlawful usurpation of the constituent authority of the people. In the current world, going as per the Schmitt argument would mean that the constitution should not have control over the majority ruling even if their issue at hand is unlawful. Thus, everybody would be losing lives in an effort to fight for political superiority in democratically termed governance, which in the real sense depicts dictatorship. References Schmitt, C. (2008). The concept of the political: Expanded edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schmitt, C. (2008). Constitutional theory. Durham: Duke University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge. Read More