Carl Schmitt has played a major role in defining political thoughts in his book titled The Concept of the Political which was published in Germany in the year 1927 (Gilpin, 2016). In his book, he gave a clear idea of the values that he held about politics. In this paper, I will explore the most fundamental views and thoughts that were held by Schmitt. My focus, however, will be on the friend-enemy distinction between the political structure and the state and also the reasons that he stood against liberalism.
The Friend-Enemy Distinction
In political theory, The Friend-Enemy Distinction is perhaps the most known contribution that he made. In his view, Schmitt suggested that in a political state, it is only the possibility of conflict occurrence that matters. He, therefore, regards the number of conflicts that have occurred in history between two nations or states to be irrelevant. He regards the probability of a conflict between two nations occurring to be the most important thing. He links the concept of the enemy to a reason to raise the possibility of conflicts occurring in a nation. Schmitt further explains that the use of the terms “friends” and “enemy” is used literally for the specific meaning that it refers to the real possibility of physical killing occurring (Gilpin, 2016). Schmitt explains in his book that the concept of the state is largely dependent on the concept of the political. He further explains that conflicts and conflict resolution are what define the system of politics, and therefore the order in politics will give rise to a state.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Balakrishnan and Leo Strauss held different opinions about the link between the state and the political. They argued that the term political arises from the Greek word polis which can be translated to state and political making it hard to distinguish from the other (Schmitt, 2017). Balakrishnan argues argued that Schmitt stood for a specific view in his political relations. This approach was based on the monopoly of legitimate violence. Schmitt opinions of politics were based on the various spheres that he regarded to have an effect on the political state of a nation including religion, culture, and economy. He argued that for a state to develop politically and experience growth politically, everyone needs to develop a connection to the state itself in every aspect of their lives (Schmitt, 2017). Schmitt had the view that the newly emerging political trends have the state controlling every aspect of society.
Schmitt created a defined line between the state and society. He argued that for a nation to grow politically, there is a need to defend society from external conflicts. This means that society should be protected from external attacks. However, Schmitt also stressed the issue of being vigilant of internal enemies(Sleat, 2016). In this, he meant that the state should be wary of the internal threats that may affect the order and peace of the nation. The cases of conflicts internally include terrorism and political unrest. He based his arguments on the weaknesses that are associated with liberalism. William E. Scheuermann explained the constitutional theory written by Schmitt in 1928 to have discussed how liberals have regularly had a presupposed political apparatus to have existed (Schmitt, 2017). This means that the political models of the liberals are purely based on the way the state will respond to the state while in the position of power but it does not explain the way they got to power in the first place.
The theory that is argued by Schmitt renders the models of the liberals irrelevant since for one it cannot address the concept of how the state came into being. Secondly, all the proposals that are aimed at addressing the existence of the state would involve employing the concepts drawn by Schmitt. Scheuermann on the other deviates from the explanation made by Schmitt of the enemy concept and inadequacies of normativism; he explains that for people to protect themselves from external attacks, the people should be reconstituted first by possessing the capacity to take up conflicts and violence against the external threats (Schmitt, 2017). He, therefore, made a conclusion that for a nation or state to be able to develop successfully, it should be able to ward off the enemy.
Why does Schmitt frame political in terms of conflict
Schmitt frames the political arena in terms of conflict because from his argument of politics, he argues that it is vital for a state to form a coalition. He argues that politics is not an area where goods are shared rather it is a battlefield where disputes are negotiated and limited in the absence of any such good. Michael Dillon also argues that for justice to prevail it requires a political alliance between members. Schmitt hence had the upper hand in his argument that for a political concept of reconciliation, there should be restoration amongst the community members to ensure that they maintain unity. Schmitt’s argument of the friend-enemy relation is the guiding factor the politics and alliance formation (Sleat, 2016). He argued that political grievances and disputes are better solved when they are presented to a community that liberals, on the other hand, are against.
Schmitt’s Notion of Sovereignty
Liberals do not acknowledge the duty of sovereign authority and modern legal theories have often tried to dispense with the concept. Schmitt however in his book on political theology challenged the idea of trying to get rid of sovereignty(Brännström, 2015). He argued that from his view a legal order cannot be established nor instituted in one work without the presence of sovereign authority. Schmitt has the view that only the people that have the legitimate role in running the state should be allowed to govern the people so that they can be subject to predictable demands of the law contrary to the liberal constitutionalists that depend on the arbitrary authority of persons(Brännström, 2015). He further added that the general legal rules should be able to use to solve concrete cases and give direction on how to deal with problems that the interpretations have been contested. The material content of the law should not, however, determine the person to interpret it and how to apply it.
Schmitt and Liberalism
Regardless of the differences that Schmitt had with liberalism, he was keen to distinguish the two types of liberalism, the authoritarian type, and the anarchist type. He had the view that the authoritarian liberalist viewed people in terms of their goodness. He further added that the views of liberalism are based on the argument that the state is a servant of the people and therefore must be controlled. Schmitt disliked the liberalists because he viewed them to have not advanced on the theory of the state but just rely on attempts to relate the political to the ethical and the economics (Brännström, 2015). Schmitt, however, asserted that liberalism had created a doctrine of separation and balance of powers. This according to him had just assisted in the creation of systems of checks and controls of the state but do not characterize as a theory of state or basic political principle.
Conclusion
The views that are held by Schmitt are very vital in the development of a viable and consistent political theory of the state. It explains how the political state in a nation is run. It strives to explain the historical and political events that have occurred in the political domain. He tried to showcase his actual sense and the stand that he had about politics. He also urged the weaknesses that were presented in the arguments raised by liberalism. He was encouraged to have an interest in politics because of the political injustices that were inflicted on his country Germany both from within and outside. Schmitt was fascinated by the unrest in the Weimar period, and he had an allegiance with the Nazis just after Hitler rose to power (Gilpin, 2016). Generally, the theory that he lay in his research was meant to enlighten the world about the political history and the forms in which a state can survive. He used the friend-enemy approach to show how it is important for a state to ensure that they collaborate so as to achieve political stability.
References
Brännström, L. (2015). Carl Schmitt’s definition of sovereignty as authorized leadership. The
Contemporary Relevance of Carl Schmitt: Law, Politics, Theology , 19.
Gilpin, R. (2016). The political economy of international relations . Princeton University Press.
Schmitt, C. (2017). Political romanticism . Routledge.
Sleat, M. (2016). Realism, liberalism and non-ideal theory or, are there two ways to do realistic
political theory . Political Studies , 64 (1), 27-41.
