Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought)

Carl Schmitt's _Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy_ offers a trenchant, and largely convincing critique of liberal democracy. Ultimately, however, it is disappointing in that it fails to offer solutions to the problems it identifies.Schmitt begins his critique of parliamentary democracy by rejecting the standard argument marshalled in its defence -- that whatever its flaws, it should be sustained, because all other known systems of government are worse. Schmitt argues that a principled defence of parliamentary democracy must do more than simply declare "What else?"Schmitt proceeds to define democracy, and parliamentarism in a way that most 21st century liberal democrats will find peculiar, as two philosophies of government that are in fact fundamentally different, and do not necessarily complement one another.In constructing a definition of democracy, Schmitt turns to Aristotle and Rousseau. Democracy requires that equals be treated equally, and unequals, unequally (9).* Thus, there is always a condition one must satisfy to be granted equal political rights. In an Aristotelian democracy, that condition is 'virtue'. Only the virtuous or excellent have full rights as citizens. In the 19th century version, full political rights belong to those who are members of "the nation" (9). In other words, democracy demands 'homogeneity' either in virtue, nationality, or some other category. The idea of granting political rights to everyone, without any qualification for membership in the political community, is not a democratic, but a liberal idea, says Schmitt (11). Liberalism proposes something which is utterly absurd, a "democracy of mankind" (11). Moreover, following Rousseau, Schmitt says that democracy expresses the people's 'general will', which only exists where the people are so homogeneous that there is essential unanimity (13).Defined in this way, democracy is very different from parliamentarism. Citing Burke, Bentham, Guizot and J.S. Mill, Schmitt argues that parliamentarism is a system of government whose philosophical justification lies in the supposed value of 'open discussion'. The essence of parliamentarism is not that it is a form of representative government, but that it is a form of deliberative government. The purpose of a parliament or congress is that parliamentarians or congressmen should deliberate upon important affairs of state and devise appropriate policies. The truth, or the right policy, is supposed to result from discussion, from the competition of different opinions and ideas, and from the capacity and willingness of the parliamentarians to persuade and be persuaded as to the best course of action for the political community as a whole (5, 46).Now, in the real world, argues Schmitt, 'parliamentary democracy' is neither parliamentary nor democratic. In the first place, policies in parliamentary governments are not arrived at through open discussion of affairs of state among the hundreds of members who compose the legislative body. Instead 'small and exclusive committees of parties or of party coalitions make their decisions behind closed doors, and what representatives of the big capitalist interest groups agree to in the smallest committees is more important to the fate of millions of people than, perhaps, any political decision' (50) Parliament is not a place where the truth is found out through deliberation. It is place where the interests of powerful groups become government policy.If parliamentary democracy is not parliamentary, then it is obviously not democratic. 'Newspaper articles, speeches at demonstrations, and parliamentary debates' are supposed to make government accountable to the will of the people. Yet today, 'there are not many more who believe that these freedoms still exist where they could actually endanger the real holders of power' 50.Thus, parliamentary democracy is only a 'facade' (49). If it does not live up to its ideals, then it no longer has legitimacy.If Schmitt impresses the reader with his critique, his failure to offer solutions disappoints. Schmitt actually does offer alternatives to liberal democracy, but one has to look elsewhere for these, for example, in _Legality and Legitimacy_, and _Constitutional Theory_. Needless to say, liberal democrats, however disillusioned, will not find Schmitt's solutions palatable.*This is a misinterpretation of Aristotle. Aristotle's ideal form of government was aristocracy, government by the virtuous. Schmitt confounds this with Aristotle's formulation of democracy.

This slim volume succinctly criticizes liberal-democratic regimes on the basis of reality and facts. It challenges many of the underlying premises of liberal democratic regimes and works through how they are do not be out in practice.As I grow older I find it hard to understand some of our American egalitarian social premises. Equality, that slogan shared with the French revolutionaries, denotes sameness. Difference is not sameness. Individuals are different. Hence they are not the same. That which is not the same is not equal. Individuals are not the same hence nor are they equal. And yet citizen equality is a counter-factual premise of modern parliamentary democracy. How does Schmitt deal with human difference; or, to use another slogan of our day, how does he regard the impact of diversity?There is a rich vein of European thought which criticizes democracy going right back to and standing on the shoulders of Plato's Republic. This book is a worthy update.Time passing will increasingly remove the opprobrium imposed by the victors on Schmitt's work and it will continue to advance. The topics in this modest work are timely as ever for the student of politics.

So this is no reflection on the seller, the book came in quickly and in good condition. It is the writing itself which is the issue. Carl Schmitt is narrow-minded and basically says you can have individualism or dictatorship, and even then you aren't really given that choice since he believes that liberalism is self-destructing all around him and will crumble. But the man is terrible at explaining himself, he takes almost every point as a given, and he jumps around from one topic (without any conclusion or actual implications) and suddenly, you are reading about dictatorship and it is not at all clear what Schmitt is proposing, it is up to the reader to tease out what he is getting at, which is that he hates Jews and loves himself some Nazis. But as I tried to unpack this book after hours of frustration, I found that he really provides no reasoning, or explanation, or basic generalized thoughts about why dictatorships would solve or improve upon the crisis of parliament. The Concept of the Political is a better read though the bar is low, but at least there is some line of logic. Terrible book, I had hoped to hear the rationality and reasoning behind the desire for dictatorship and it was no where to be found. I don't think there is much to be learned here even if you are just seeking to understand fascists theories. Unless you need to read this for a class then I would suggest other fascist kind of theories like Hobbes, Hobbes was a great writer because he actually explains himself. Just read the Leviathan, perhaps some good old Machiavelli's the Prince, but don't waste your time with this.

This significant book should be read in conjunction with Robert Corfe's important book, "The Crisis of Democracy in the advanced industrial economies," which reaches the conclusion that the left/right divide that has served as the medium in resolving democracy's problems over so long a period is now reaching the end of its useful life. As the left/right conflict is now compounding rather than resolving the most important issues of our time, a new rationale is needed as a democratic mechanism.