Carl Schmitt’s concept of “the political” and its associated view of sovereignty and law are rather weak because the explanation lacks vital details and reliable support. Schmitt writes that the state is the political status of an organized people, nothing more. Nevertheless, there is no full definition of the state or the political in any of his writings. The major part of his writing is devoted to explanation of the “enemy-friend concept from different perspectives while Schmitt has failed to explain the need to include these concepts into the discussion of state. Moreover, there is little logic in other arguments as well.
However, the argumentation regarding the concept of “sovereign” is stronger because the whole chapter is devoted to the ideas of “sovereign” and “sovereignty”. The final discussion on law is weak and not supported with evidence. In overall, Schmitt has failed to define “state”, “the political”, “sovereign”, and “law” because arguments and comments are rather weak and not supported with examples.
The state is the specific entity of a people. Moreover, Schmitt notes that the world “the political” is used negatively to various ideas not related to the state. In addition, he relates politics and economy, politics and morality, and politics and law, while the discussion of these concepts does not contribute to the definition of “the political”. Thus, the writing space is wasted to ideas that are not relevant to the topic being discussed.
Moreover, the argument that the state is qualitatively distinct from society and higher than it is rather weak because no evidence or argumentation is provided to support it. At the same time, Schmitt does not reject the general “definitions of the political which contain nothing more than additional references to the state” (Schmitt, 1996, p.22) because they are intellectually justifiable for as long as the state is truly a clear entity confronting nonpolitical groups.
Schmitt has failed to explain the need to integrate the concepts of enemy and friend into the definition of “the political”. He notes that “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy” (Schmitt, 1996, p.26). Even though Schmitt notes that these concepts do not provide the definition of “the political”, the major section of the chapter is devoted to the discussion of “enemy” and “friend”. Moreover, Schmitt argues that “the political” should not be defined in terms of sociology or ethics; he adds that the nations continue to group themselves according to the friend and enemy antithesis. This argument is weak because there is no consistency in argumentation.
There is no logic in the statement that all political concepts are focused on a specific conflict and are bound to the specific situation; the result is a friendly-enemy grouping. Moreover, Schmitt continues that sovereignty and constitutional state are incomprehensible if one does not know exactly who is to be affected by such a term (1996, p.30). The argument that politics equals to party politics is possible whenever antagonisms among domestic political parties succeed in weakening the state is not strong enough because it is not followed with further clarification. As the result, Schmitt produces the overview of what “the political” is not instead of stating what “the political” is.
Nevertheless, the argumentation regarding the concept of “sovereignty” is stronger. In particular, Schmitt notes that “sovereignty is the highest power, not a derived power” (1985, p. 6) and this definition is kept throughout his writing. In particular, Schmitt argues if action is not subject to control, if it is not hampered in some way by checks and balances, then it is clear who the sovereign is. Following the argument presented by Schmitt, “the sovereign” is a person who decides whether there is an extreme emergency and what must be done to eliminate it. Moreover, sovereign stands outside the valid legal system and belongs to it simultaneously. There is consistency of argumentation and clear logic in argument development.
Schmitt makes a strong point regarding the definition of sovereignty as indivisible and supports this note with reference to Bodine’s theory of power and sovereignty. According to Schmitt, sovereign is a person who can violate commitments, change laws and suspend them entirely according to the requirements of a situation or people (Schmitt, 1985, p. 9). This argument is strong because it is followed with examples relevant to proposed definition of “sovereign”. For example, Schmitt argues that to understand the question of sovereign means to understand the question of the decision on the exception. Moreover, it is clearly explained that the concept of “sovereign” can not be considered universally because it is aimed at the application of the concept to specific situations.
Furthermore, Schmitt shifts the discussion to the concept “law” noting that “all law is situational law” (1985, p. 13) while the sovereign produces and guarantees the situation in its totality. However, the line of argumentation is weakened with the numerous discussions that are irrelevant to the concepts of “law” and “sovereign”. In particular, the comments such as “the exception is more interesting than the rule”, “the rule proves nothing”, and “the exception proves everything” (Schmitt, 1985, p. 15) carry no message and create confusion.
Finally, some of the points discussed by Schmitt need further clarification and explanation. While some of the ideas deserve attention, the majority of the arguments are weak because they are not supported with examples or reference to reliable sources. Moreover, Schmitt separates the concepts of “sovereign” and “the political” from the people and humanity in general. According to the logic of Schmitt, the political is not related to human activities while it does not correspond to the real situation. The political, sovereign, law, and state are dependent upon people and human interactions; the human factor should not be ignored.
Works Cited
Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. MIT Press-Books, 1985.
Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political. University of Chicago Press, 1996.