Maitre and Schmitt: the Draculas of political philosophy? · PDF fileMaitre and Schmitt: the...
Transcript of Maitre and Schmitt: the Draculas of political philosophy? · PDF fileMaitre and Schmitt: the...
Maitre and Schmitt: the Draculas of political philosophy?
Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)
Jan Verplaetse – Ghent University
Joseph de Maitre (1753-1821)
Max Schreck as Nosferatu(1922)
Bella Lugosi as Dracula(1932)
The collapse of liberal democracy?
Gary Oldman as The Count(1992)
What is liberal democracy?
DEMOCRACY
People have the power
Representative democracy
Regular elections
Right to vote and to be elected
Trias politicas (juridical, executive, legislative)
Rule of law
main ideas
What is liberal democracy?
POLITICAL LIBERALISM
John Rawls (1921-2002)
Every well-ordered society should guarantee BASIC RIGHTS (equality, liberty) for all citizens
COMPREHENSIVE DOCTRINES should accept these BASIC RIGHTS (overlapping consensus) if politicalactive
The STATE should abstain from favoring a particularCONCEPTION OF THE GOOD LIFE (as formulated bycomprehensive doctrines)
Three main ideas
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
four lines of critique
Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)Joseph de Maitre (1753-1821)
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
CRITIQUE 1
Liberal democracy ignores the very nature of politics
Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Domain Antithesis Conflict
Science True or false Research
Economy Profitable or not Competitors
Ethics Good or evil Debating adversaries
Aesthetics Beautiful or ugly Taste
CRITIQUE 1
Liberal democracy ignores the very nature of politics
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Liberal democracy ignores the very nature of politics
Domain Distinction Conflict
Science True or false Research
Economy Profitable or not Competition
Ethics Good or evil Debate
Aesthetics Beautiful or ugly Taste
Politics Friend or enemy The possibility of war
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Liberal democracy ignores the very nature of politics
Carl Schmitt, The concept of the political (1922)
“It is irrelevant here whether one rejects, accepts, or perhaps finds itan atavistic remnant of barbaric times that nations continue to grouptogether according to friend and enemy, or hopes that the antithesis will one day vanish from the world (…). The concern is here is neitherwith abstractions nor with normative ideals, but with inherent realityand the real possibility of such a distinction.”
“For to the enemy concept belongs the ever present possibility ofcombat (…) It does not mean competition, nor does it mean pureintellectual controversy (…) The friend, enemy, and combat conceptsreceive their real meaning precisely because they refer to the realpossibility of physical killing.”
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Liberal democracy ignores the very nature of politics
conflict between friend and enemy
“Geist gegen Geist, Leben gegen Leben”
Sweden, 2016 – sacrifice The Netherlands, 2015 – combat
Continuity of friend – enemy distinction
any domain can be affected by this antithesis
16th century
CHRISTIAN RELIGION
20th century
ECONOMICS
21st century
HUMAN RIGHTS
Protestants >< Catholics Communists >< Capitalists Liberals >< Non-liberals
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
POLITICAL LIBERALISM
John Rawls (1921-2002)
Any well-ordered society should guarantee BASIC RIGHTS (equality, liberty) for any citizen
COMPREHENSIVE DOCTRINES should accept these BASIC RIGHTS (overlapping consensus) if politicalactive
The STATE should abstain from favorising a particularCONCEPTION OF THE GOOD LIFE (as formulated bycomprehensive doctrines)
no overlapping consensus
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
CRITIQUE 2
Liberal democracy cannot cope with exceptional situations
Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)
What to do in exceptional situations?
Military action
Bush Hollande
War on Terror Guerre contre le Terrorisme
What to do exceptional situations?
constitutional or legal actions
“La forme républicaine du Gouvernement ne peut faire l’objet d’uneproposition de révision”
Constitution of France (1884)
Hungary (2009) Belgium (2004)
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
POLITICAL LIBERALISM
John Rawls (1921-2002)
Any well-ordered society should guarantee BASIC RIGHTS (equality, liberty) for any citizen
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION NON-DISCRIMINATION
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
FREEDOM OF EDUCATION
FREEDOM OF RELIGION…
Non-liberals abuse liberal rights liberals respond with non-liberal means
Switzerland does not accept refugees who refusehand-shaking
France bans the wearing of a veil in schools
Loss of nationality for returned IS combattants
Belgium punishes Holocaust deniers
English delinquents lose right to vote
Austria keeps out refugees if “state of emergency”
3000 websites support IS in France
Public appraisal for terror attacks in Belgium andFrance
Muslim schools fundraised by Wahhabism in theNetherlands
60% of Belgian Turks vote for Erdogans AK-party
Examples:Examples:
CRITIQUE 2
Liberal democracy cannot cope with exceptional situations
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
POLITICAL LIBERALISM POPULAR SOVEREIGNITY
“liberalism” “democracy”
basic contradiction
promotes inclusion requires exclusion
human rights citizen rights
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Critique 3
The necessity of orthodoxy
Joseph de Maitre (1753-1821)
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
The necessity of orthodoxy
newcomers declaration (proposal)
“We literally ask to subscribe to our values. This document is morethan a scrap of paper. One should respect this agreement and we willmonitor this.”
Theo Francken
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
POLITICAL LIBERALISM
John Rawls (1921-2002)
Any well-ordered society should guarantee BASIC RIGHTS (equality, liberty) for all citizens
COMPREHENSIVE DOCTRINES should accept these BASIC RIGHTS (overlapping consensus) if politicalactive
The STATE should abstain from favoring a particularCONCEPTION OF THE GOOD LIFE (as formulated bycomprehensive doctrines)
The STATE defends one comprehensive doctrine
Three main ideas
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Critique 4
The dominant comprehensive doctrine should be based upon non-rational beliefs
Joseph de Maitre (1753-1821)
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Joseph de Maitre (1753-1821)
Although rational beliefs promise universalagreement, they mostly bring controversy, evenrelativism and skepticism. Due to our limitedknowledge and permanent fear for insecurity weshould endorse non-rational dogma’s such asreligious ones.
Critique 4
The dominant comprehensive doctrine should be based upon non-rational beliefs
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Maitre, Etude sur la souveraineté (1870)
Critique 4
The dominant comprehensive doctrine should be based upon non-rational beliefs
“La raison humaine réduite à ses forces individuelles estparfaitement nulle, non seulement pour la création maisencore pour la conservation de toute associationreligieuse ou politique, parce qu’elle ne produit desdisputes. L’homme pour se conduire n’a pas de besoindes problèmes mais des croyances. Son berceau doitêtre environné de dogmes”
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
Joseph de Maitre (1753-1821)
Although rational beliefs promise universalagreement, they mostly bring controversy, evenrelativism and skepticism. Due to our limitedknowledge and permanent fear for insecurity weshould endorse non-rational dogma’s such asreligious ones.
Non-rational beliefs stir emotionality and willingnessto act whereas rational beliefs only appeal to ourintellectual curiosity.
Critique 4
The dominant comprehensive doctrine should be based upon non-rational beliefs
Max Schreck as Nosferatu(1922)
Bella Lugosi as Dracula(1932)
Do the critiques of Maitre and Schmitt exceed the fiction of horror?
Gary Oldman as The Count(1992)
The collapse of liberal democracy?
What is wrong with liberal democracy?
POLITICAL LIBERALISM
John Rawls (1921-2002)
“The wars of this century with their extreme violenceand increasing destructiveness, culminating in the manicevil of the Holocaust, raise in an acute way the questionwhether political relations must be governed by powerand coercion alone. If a reasonable just society is notpossible and people are largely amoral, one may askwith Kant whether it is worthwhile for humans to live onearth? We must start with the assumption that areasonable just political society is possible, and for it bepossible, human beings must have a moral nature, not ofcourse a perfect such nature.”
John Rawls, Political Liberalism (1995)