Nationalism and Sovereignty in Carl Schmitt's Political Thought, Apuntes de Teoría Política

¡Descarga Nationalism and Sovereignty in Carl Schmitt's Political Thought y más Apuntes en PDF de Teoría Política solo en Docsity! Nationalism in Carl Schmitt's Political Thought There are few political scholars as controversial as Carl Schmitt. Known by many today as the “Crown Jurist of the Third Reich” for his problematic association with the Nazis during World War II, Schmitt’s thinking, nevertheless, remains relevant today and has received increased academic attention in political science and political philosophy. In this paper, I will examine how the insights of nationalism studies fit with Schmitt's political theory. Specifically, I analyze the position of culture within Schmitt's theory of sovereignty and the concept of the political. Culture plays a central role in theories of nationalism thus I next connect the manner in which culture functions in Schmitt to the way scholars link culture to nationalism. Finally, I will apply the product of my review of Schmitt to the taxing case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina to test the applicability of Schmitt's state centered theories of the interwar period to contemporary issues of governance in multi-nation states. In so doing, I will demonstrate that Schmitt's idealized view of the state and its role as an actor, rather than bringing stability and order to situations in which a politics of difference plays the decisive role, actually becomes the locus of political struggle making the domestic friend-enemy distinction inherently the decisive one in Bosnia and other similar cases unless a radical rethinking of the governmental system is undertaken. To do this, I will necessarily have to move beyond Schmitt’s own writings and apply his ideas to contexts he could not have foreseen. For this reason, my focus is on the ways in which the theory of the political can be applied and contextualized today rather than on an attempt to read nationalism into the ideas in their original context. However, some explanation of the historical conditions in which Schmitt developed his political thinking are warranted. Given that Schmitt wrote many of his most important works during the Weimar period in Germany, it is important to keep in mind the context in which he was working. Weimar Germany was a time of great instability in Germany and the constitutional government of the period had to deal with significant economic problems following the end of World War I as well as internal centrifugal forces from both the right and the left. Schmitt, who by all accounts strongly favored order and security over revolution in any form1, acted as one of the strongest defenders during much of the period of the Weimar government and its ability to preserve itself through the use of the state of the exception which will be discussed in detail below. Schmitt and Sovereignty Essential to understanding much of Schmitt's political theory and especially the concept of the political is his definition of sovereignty. Sovereignty for Schmitt is defined by the decision. Originally this decision was on the form the government and social order would take through the creation of a constitution. Subsequently, the decision is found in the power to designate the exception. In the first instance, the decision can be seen as exercised in the act of creating a constitution, setting up the form of the government, and outlining the disbursement of power and how it functions. Such a situation remains relatively rare in human history making the second formulation of the decision the decisive one. This second instance refers to the power to declare a state of exception. The state of the exception is an extreme situation in which the sovereign authority is able to temporarily abrogate the existing legal order (for example, many basic rights, such as habeas corpus, may be suspended under the exception) in order to respond to an extreme challenge that challenges the foundation of the system itself.2 As noted above, Schmitt's experience of the instability of World War I and especially the Weimar Period 1 Joseph W. Bendersky, Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich 2 Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, 19 is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party.7 Designating an entity as friend or enemy functions primarily in the realm of international politics for Schmitt though he does acknowledge that in some situations internal politics can become elevated to become the primary space of the political. "If domestic conflicts among political parties have become the sole political difference, the most extreme degree of internal political tension is thereby reached; i.e., the domestic, not the foreign enemy friend-and-enemy groupings are decisive for armed conflict."8 Internal politics, when they reach such a level, contend for control of the state and for the ability to determine the enemy. Schmitt emphasizes that the potential for violent conflict between friend and enemy is not over something substantive such as access to resources but differences regarding the greater good or over who is able to define the greater good - implying in the latter case political struggle within the state. The Role of Culture in Schmitt's Theory Schmitt's entire theory of sovereignty and the political depends on a particular understanding of culture and its role in enabling social cohesion. G.L. Umen explains Schmitt's concept of culture as a critique of the prevailing liberal notion predominant in the interwar period. Culture, rather than being the "pure product of the human mind," is a "cultivation of human nature" that, importantly, applies to collectives as opposed to individuals.9 Schmitt's categories and assumed actors depend on a constructed cultural understanding of self and other on a broader group or even societal level. As Strong puts it, "The important aspect to Schmitt’s 7 Ibid, 27 8 Ibid, 32 9 G.L. Umen, The Sociology of the State: Carl Schmitt and Max Weber, 36 claim is that we (a “we”) will be able to be clear about what “we” are and what it is “rational” for “us” to do.” 10 Rather than being the original distinction and the basis for the rest of the political order, the political as defined by the friend-enemy distinction actually is constituted by a collective cultural understanding. David Pan argues that Schmitt's focus on collectives and the decision as one made by the whole state means that the decision assumes almost complete uniformity among those subject to the decision, and that the decision is about a particular way of life rather than on the existence of the group itself.11 In Pan's reading, the decision is that of the entire political entity. However, Schmitt only speaks of it as the decision of the state itself. If we take into account Schmitt's scathing critique of liberalism and his charge that it seeks to bring about the total state in which the distinction between state and society is collapsed and his discussion of situations in which internal politics become determinant of the political, then we must modify Pan's argument. It is true that Schmitt conceives of the state and the established order as having an existence of its own with an interest in its own continuity. However, it is possible and even likely that a particular societal group however defined would be able to take control of the state without destroying the established order and thereby setting themselves up as the ultimate sovereign. Schmitt writes, "If, in fact, the economic, cultural, or religious counterforces are so strong that they are in a position to decide upon the extreme possibility from their viewpoint, then these forces have in actuality become the new substance of the political entity."12 Therefore, Pan takes his explanation of who the subject making the decision is by conflating the state with the entire polity when in reality the decision is made by those with control of the state (or soon to assert control). 10 Tracy Strong, Foreword in The Concept of the Political, xxi 11 Pan, 53 12 The Concept of the Political, 39 While differing in the specifics of their definitions of nationalism and how it arises, two of the classic theorists of nationalism - Ernest Gellner and Anthony Smith - agree that there is an essential cultural component to it. Gellner and Smith's conceptions of the role of culture in nationalism actually corresponds well with Schmitt's theory of sovereignty. The differences lie mainly in the focus of the scholars. Gellner and Smith's desire to describe, explain, and analyze nationalism leads to a focus on how what the building blocks so to say are and how it is produced. Schmitt, on the other hand, begins from the assumption that culture acts as the main building block of a political entity and he then uses this assertion to formulate a theory on exercising sovereignty. For Gellner, culture plays an even more essential role as it acts as the main social bond that provides a community with the distinctiveness it needs to perform politically.13 This idea forms the basic assumption made by Schmitt that underlies his theory of sovereignty. Gellner states that culture and organization are the "raw material, so to speak, of all social life" with a view to explain the modern evolution of nationalism while Schmitt uses culture as the starting point for a political entity that then creates organization by exercising the sovereign decision in the first instance. Following this initial use of culture that corresponds well with Gellner, Schmitt moves on to the concept of the political and the exercise of sovereignty following the initial decision. At this point, Schmitt's understanding of culture corresponds more closely with that of Anthony Smith in his discussion of ethno-symbolism. Smith also places culture at the center of the construction of an ethnie, his term for a politically conscious national group. A number of factors come together for Smith to produce and re-produce the nation in each generation. These aspects of the nation - myth, memory, symbols, and traditions - form the basis both for cohesion and for conflict as they enable competing claims to particular geographical areas (which often 13 Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism the Peace Agreement or the terms for its implementation."17 Thus, the international community participated in the original decision by drafting and signing the Dayton Accords and now continues to exercise sovereignty through the High Representative's ability to decide on the exception though this does not include the ability to definitively make the friend-enemy distinction for any citizens of the country due to a lack of support and legitimacy.18 Remarkably, the current governmental system of Bosnia closely resembles Schmitt's theory based on a strong central authority in practice if not on paper. The arrangement described above has been able to keep the peace and, with significant intervention from the High Representative, has brought about important reforms bringing the government closer to functioning on its own. However, this has all been at the expense of truly representative government and the production of a single polity capable of taking over sovereignty. Since 2006, efforts aimed at reforming the Constitution have all failed due to internal politics both between the ethnically based political parties as well as due to competition between parties fighting for the majority of votes from a single ethnically defined community. There has been talk of abolishing the Office of the High Representative since 2008 though no substantial steps in that direction have been taken due to fears the country may again break down into violence. Based on Schmitt, it makes sense that, until internal politics no longer define the friend-enemy distinction 17 Bart M.J. Szewczyk, The EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina: powers, decisions and legitimacy, 30; Most if not all of the special Bonn powers have been used at one point or another perhaps most notably to force reform in the area of defence in April 2003. 18 The Office of the High Representative (OHR) inspires mixed feelings among citizens of BiH and other observers. Early on, the OHR often used its extensive powers to ensure the implementation of the Dayton Accords and to force reform. This lead to a general resentment of the intrusiveness of the OHR among much of the population while also enabling the ethnically based political parties to maintain a hard line without fear of any real political consequences. Recently, the OHR has scaled back its interventions into Bosnian politics and talk of abolishing the position entirely began in 2008 though virtually no significant steps have been taken in this direction. It is for this reason that under the Schmittian framework in use in this paper, sovereignty in Bosnia cannot be said to be held fully by any group. and thus remove the pseudo-sovereign qualities of ethnic political entrepreneurs and the possibility of a new initial decision on the political order creating a more unified polity is brought about, the current arrangement offers the greatest chance for stability. Conclusion In this essay, I have demonstrated that Carl Schmitt's political theory has a direct relation to nationalism through his focus on culture and the role culture plays in the formation of groups and their ability to exercise sovereignty. While one may critique any broad conception of culture such as the one prevalent not only in Schmitt but also in Gellner and Smith, Schmitt's formulation remains convincing for the role he gives to communities that construct themselves as distinct and with particular interests and way of life however this is defined. The centrality of a subjective decision on the founding of the state in order to safe-guard a particular conception of the good fits with nationalism studies view of the modern state's desire for homogeneity and the corresponding issues that arise once it becomes clear this is an impossibility. Schmitt's theory of sovereignty and of the political provides a conservative, state centered view on how such problems may be dealt with without going into detail on the particular domestic measures available to the state to reduce internal tensions and keep the political in the international realm. With its three major ethnic groups all vying for increased power along narrow lines, Bosnia illustrates the importance of cohesiveness in the polity. Schmitt and the nationalism theorists discussed in this essay each suggest that culture plays a role in providing a particular community with cohesion and the ability to exercise sovereignty and determine the friend-enemy distinction. While it is outside the scope of this paper to put forth an argument on how Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats are constructed in Bosnia and on what is their cohesion or lack thereof based, this case study strongly suggests that Schmitt is correct in placing some basic assumption about identity and the general good as the starting point for a functioning, fully sovereign polity. However, the final analysis indicates that in situations of ethnic pluralism dominated by a politics of difference, the state is unable to take on the role of an individual actor, and rather control of the state becomes the main locus of political struggle. Works Cited Belloni Roberto. "Bosnia: Dayton is dead! long live Dayton!" Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. 15 (3-4) (2009): 355-375. Bendersky, Joseph W. Carl Schmitt, theorist for the Reich. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983.