Written by At the heart of political philosophy lies a fundamental question: Who truly holds power when the system collapses? German jurist Carl Schmitt gave a provocative answer: “The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” This statement, simple yet explosive, challenges our deepest assumptions about law, order, and democracy.
The State of Exception: Where Law Disappears
Schmitt’s most controversial idea is the “state of exception,” a moment when normal laws are suspended, and raw power takes over. Think of emergencies like wars, pandemics, or civil unrest. In these crises, constitutions and parliaments often become irrelevant. What matters is who gets to decide when to bypass the rules.
For Schmitt, this decision-maker, whether a president, king, or military leader, is the real sovereign, not the legal system. Laws are just words on paper until someone enforces them. But the sovereign? They can tear up those papers when survival is at stake.
Sovereignty as Decision, Not Law
Traditional political theory sees sovereignty as the highest legal authority. Schmitt flips this: true sovereignty is the power to act outside the law. A president who declares martial law, a ruler who suspends elections, a government that jails opponents “for national security”—these aren’t breakdowns of the system. They are the system revealing its true nature.
This idea comes from Schmitt’s “Political Theology,” where he compares sovereign power to God’s absolute authority. Just as God can perform miracles (breaking natural laws), the sovereign can suspend legal ones.
A Brutal Critique of Liberalism
Schmitt despised liberal democracy. He saw its checks and balances as weak—a system that can’t act fast when enemies attack. His famous “friend-enemy distinction” argues that politics isn’t about debate or compromise. It’s about identifying threats and crushing them.
In his view, liberal democracies fail because:
- They debate forever while crises escalate
- They pretend laws can solve everything
- They refuse to admit that violence is the foundation of all states
Why Schmitt Still Haunts Us
From the Patriot Act after 9/11 to emergency pandemic powers, Schmitt’s shadow looms large. Modern governments still:
Suspend civil liberties during crises
Expand executive authority “temporarily” (that often becomes permanent)
Justify extreme measures by declaring existential threats
Even the European Union, designed to prevent Schmitt’s authoritarianism, suspended fiscal rules during COVID, proving his point that no legal order survives true emergencies.
The Danger of Schmitt’s Legacy
While insightful, Schmitt’s theory is dangerous. It was used to justify Nazi rule (which he supported). Today, it fuels:
- Populist strongmen who claim, “only I can fix this”
- Permanent states of emergency (like Syria’s 60-year “temporary” emergency law)
- Erosion of rights under the guise of protection
Conclusion: Can Democracy Survive the Exception?
Schmitt forces us to confront an ugly truth: law depends on power, not the other way around. The challenge for democracies is to handle crises without becoming dictatorships. Can we have security and freedom? Schmitt would laugh at the question. But we must keep asking it or risk proving him right.
Food for Thought:
- When your government declares an emergency, who benefits?
- How many “temporary” powers have become permanent in your country?
- Can laws ever truly constrain those who enforce them?
Schmitt’s ideas are a warning: the exception isn’t an accident, it’s where politics gets real. Ignore it, and you ignore how power works.
For more, subscribe to foramz.com
Leave a Reply