Carl Schmitt's Critique of Congress and the "Dictatorship" Theory

o3.icon

1. why the parliamentary system was considered "incompatible with democracy

In The Psychohistorical Situation of Modern Parliamentarism (1923), Schmidt wrote that the two assumptions that have justified the Congress--the

1: Open discussion (council members persuade each other in a reasoned manner)

2: Variable willingness (each legislator's position can change during the debate)

He pointed out that the Congress of the United States has been dismantled. He argued that the real parliament has become a place of party trade, and that debate is a "hollowed-out apparatus" that remains only a formality.

He therefore said, "Compromises made by majority rule cannot express the identical will of the people. The self-identical will of a homogeneous people is the essence of democracy," and he separated parliamentarism from democracy.

[Kommissarische

Temporarily suspends the law, but leaves the Constitution as a prerequisite.

Objective: Restoration of constitutional order

Example: Emergency Dictator of the Roman Republic

Suspended the old Constitution and determined the fundamental norms

Purpose: Creation of a new constitutional order

Example: Jacobins during the French Revolution, etc.

This distinction positions the dictatorship as a "legal system for dealing with states of exception" rather than mere arbitrary rule.

3. plebiscitary dictatorship

The late Schmitt defended popular-vote dictatorship in his "Constitutional Theory" (1928) and other works.

The leader obtains direct approval by referendum (plebiscite) or acclamation (akklamation), not through the parliament.

Here, "the decision of the leader = the will of the people" is considered to be valid, and the immediacy and identity of the decision is more important than in the Congress.

old title:

---