On Carl Schmitt's Critique Of Parliamentarism

Following the German Empire's collapse,the newborn Weimar Republic established as the political remedy of political gloom yet wobbled in the political turmoil.Whoever cares the fate of the whole nation may strive to find out the culprit that should be blamed for the social disorder.Carl Schmitt,known as a conservative nationalist,argued that the parliamentarism,most characteristic of liberalism,must be held responsible for the political dilemma of Weimar Republic.Taking the Weimar background as a point of entry,this paper tries to give an analysis to Schmitt's critique of parliamentarism which he made from the perspective of internal crisis and external threats,and to his appeal to the Reich President behind his critique,in the hope that the final academic concern of Carl Schmitt could be revealed and justified.Apart from the introduction,this paper is divided into five parts.The first part tries to clarify the fountainhead and the evolvement of Schmitt's concept of parliamentarism.Grown up in the later period of the Empire,Schmitt has witnessed its mightiness and its downfall,the authoritarian nationalism,which is so deeply embedded in this man' mind,has fostered the spirit of nationalism at his academic works.Both the frame of modernity and the issue of parliament-president brought up by Weber provided Schmitt with the problematic consciousness.Moreover,with reference to the political philosophy of Schmitt himself,conceptions such as the politics,the distinction of friend-enemy or the decision,all constitute the theme of his political thoughts.Naturally,the parliamentarism,running counter to such conceptions,with no doubt,became an abhorrent thorn in Schmitt's side.The second part gives an exposition to the historical background of Schmitt's critique of parliamentarism.Schmitt concluded that from 16 th century to 20 th century,Europe has moved from theology,metaphysics and,successively to humanitarian,economics and finally to technology,which in no way could be the eternal neutral core of the age.All the domestic disturbances with the rise of various political power outside the country,suggested that the coming age may unfortunately bathe in the violent political tension.Parliamentarism with no doubt shall be credited as the great weapon during the fight with the monarchy.Yet things have changed,as human society stepped into a wholly rational age which has been in every regard ruled by modernity,the parliamentary system was of necessity tainted with technicism and romanticism,descending to be the political puppet of social economic organization.According to Schmitt,the real status of parliamentarism is justified by the Weimar Constitution though,with a view to the specific situation in Germany,however,it was just too late: this economy-oriented parliament which knew nothing other than merely abandoning itself to romantic talking,could not resist the flood of the ‘backing' politics.The third part is the elaboration of Schmitt's critique of parliamentarism from the perspective of its internal crisis.Schmitt disagreed with the prevalent arguments that parliamentarism still proves itself important for the country because it can conduce to the achievement of democracy and it is practically useful,or in other words,it is the best of the worst,by demonstrating that to obtain an utmost understanding about something of whether it is qualified for its role,it is necessary,to probe deeply into its intellectual core,to explore whether it has lost its spirit and,if it is,to what extent it has lost.Schmitt identified the pariliamentarism principles as openness,discussion and division of power,in which the adherents of parliamentarism most take pride.However,as its enemy 'monarchy' declined,the parliamentarism itself also lost its spirit.Schmitt attempted to prove that as openness is defeated by its original opponent-the secret meetings among the specific parities or committees,discussion descends to mere exchange of opinion of pluralist parities with just partisan interests in mind,and division or balance becomes a mere formality owing to the supremacy of parliament to the government which is only allowed for syllogism reasoning with law,the parliamentarism itself,neither the representation of the whole people,nor an actionist having courage to make decisive decision,definitely is not worth keeping.According to Schmitt,since parliamentarism has lost its intellectual ground,then it is not indispensable and it must step aside for something more effective and democratic.The forth part is the elaboration of Schmitt's critique of parliamentarism from the perspective of its external threats.With disagreement to the notion that the dictatorship in Marxist thought and the theories of the direct use of force caused the crisis of parliamentarism as though,it usually comes to Schmitt that,in comparison to the spiritless parliament,these two political trends are more full of vitality and therefore more suitable for the tensive political atmosphere both in domestic or outside the country at that time.Anyhow,Schmitt meant to demonstrate that as both the victory of Bolshevikism and the rampant fascism had proved that parliamentarism is not the only way to the achievement of democracy,the relief of the Weimar dilemma must appeal to a political myth.The fifth part is to explore the real stance of Schmitt's critique of parliamentarsim.It shall be highlighted that,arguing that parliamentarism had become intellectually unqualified though,Schmitt did not assert parliamentarism must be annihilated,in that it means an overthrow to the Weimar Constitution,which is the last thing that he who expects nothing than the stable social order is wiling to see.Schmitt's criticism to parliamentarism does not direct to the overthrow of liberalism,instead,it serves only as a justification to the republic president using arbitrary power entrusted by,and limited to the Weimar Constitution in any case where the country finds itself at the state of emergency.In other words,faced with the Weimar dilemma,the flabby parliament has proved itself as not suitable,only a decisive,personal president is able to integrate the whole people as the guardian of the nation as political unity.All the while,Schmitt's ultimate concern rooted in the political reality,his advocacy of Weimar president is not so much because of presidential system's merits in theory as the temporal Weimar Republic's urgent need for a president,not a parliament to settle the nation crisis.That is to say,what haunted Schmitt is not different types of regime yielding which one is better or worse,but the existence of the real country as political unity.As long as the country can provide safe,stability and protection for its people,even precisely the Nazi regime,it is quite enough tempting for Schmitt,with stubborn belief in the notion of nation,to show his slavish obedience.