Introduction
Carl Schmitt, a controversial political theorist, remains a key figure for understanding the fragility of modern democracies. His thought, though burdened by a dark past, serves as an invaluable diagnostic tool for analyzing crises within the rule of law. This article explores his concept of the constitution as an existential political decision, confronting it with the challenges of modern parliamentarism, autocratic legalism, and the complexities of states of emergency.
The Constitution as a Decision: Beyond the Letter of the Law
Schmitt rejects the positivist identification of a constitution with its legal text. He distinguishes between three concepts: absolute (the concrete state of political unity), relative (a collection of technical norms), and positive (the constituent power's conscious decision regarding the form of the state's existence). A constitution is not a dead document, but a living act of political will.
The rejection of equating a constitution with constitutional law stems from the conviction that law is secondary to the sovereign's decision. It is this decision regarding the form of existence—such as a republic or a monarchy—that provides the foundation without which the legal system becomes merely an empty shell, susceptible to dismantling by the legislature.
Constitutional Dilemmas: Between Freedom and State Crisis
Schmitt criticizes modern constitutions for their internal contradictions, which arise from the inflation of fundamental rights. Mixing classic liberal freedoms with social entitlements leads to the erosion of private autonomy. Legislative absolutism emerges when parliament, instead of creating general norms, issues ad hoc individual acts, thereby destroying the separation of powers.
In Schmitt's view, modern party-based parliamentarism betrays the ideal of deliberation. Instead of public debate on the common good, we are faced with horse-trading between interest groups. This leads to state paralysis, where sovereignty is diluted and institutions become hostages to party bureaucracies.
Federation, Homogeneity, and the Traps of Legalism
According to Schmitt, the stability of a federation depends on homogeneity—a substantial similarity of values among the members of the community. Without it, a federation becomes a fragile construct. Modern threats, such as autocratic legalism, consist of using legal procedures to destroy the spirit of the law. Lawyers and politicians share responsibility for this process when they accept "apocryphal acts of sovereignty"—formally correct changes that, in essence, annihilate the foundations of the political order.
Despite Schmitt's own disrepute, his thought has permeated the theory of militant democracy. Modern scholarship utilizes his diagnoses to identify enemies of the system while rejecting his authoritarian prescriptions. Schmitt acts as a "shadow," warning that law without a political foundation will not survive the test of history.
Summary
Carl Schmitt's thought remains an indelible point of reference in legal scholarship. His diagnoses regarding the pathologies of power and the fragility of procedures force us to reflect on how to defend freedom without making it a victim of its own defensive mechanisms. The key challenge for modern constitutionalism is distinguishing between legal change and acts hostile to the essence of the state. In an era of parliamentary crisis, are we still capable of forging a consensus that is not merely a facade for the will of the strongest?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF