Does the People Need a Leader - Essay Example

5. Does the People need a Leader? What is the role of the leader for Schmitt or Weber? What sort of problems could a leader combat? Do Sorel’s theory of the myth and his faith in the proletariat fulfill the same sort of function? What dangers are there in reliance on a leader? What role does the leader have relative to law? Should a leader be above the law? Can the law exist without a leader? A leader is someone in the position of influencing others. The leader may emerge from the group or be elected by the people as in the case of a democratic state. In the state of nature all men are equal and have right to everything, and are also competitive hence are always in a condition of war of every man, against every man. They live in “continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes, Leviathan, 89). For this reason, men agree to form a social contract whereby they surrender their rights to the state or common-wealth in return for safeguard of their right to life and property and the person entrusted with this duty is the sovereign or leviathan. In this direct democracy, whatever sovereign decides is deemed to be the decision of the people since he is chosen by the people. Democracy can also be representative (Parliamentary) whereby few elected people decide on behalf of others. This sounds simple and normal but for Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), it is not. Democracy for Schmitt is a structure of domination where the will of the majority rules hence it presupposes homogeinity of the populace or demos but this is not always the case as the mass is heterogenous. Democracy also operates on the principle of “equals equal but unequals will not be treated equally” (Schmitt, Crisis, 9). This means it can exclude a part of those it governs without ceasing to be a democracy. This is because its argument lies logically in a series of identities such as the governors and governed, sovereign and subjects, state and law (Schmitt, crisis, 26). Since the will of the people is what determines the unceasing democratic identity, the main concern for Schmitt is identifying who has control over the means with which this will is to be constructed. And he concludes that only political power which should come from people’s will can form peoples will (Crisis, 29).This power is vested in a decisionist sovereign. George Sorel (1847-1922) problem is also that of identity and domination with two antagonistic classes; bourgeoisie and proletarian. The only solution to this problem is the end of the bourgeoisie class through a proletarian revolution inspired by a myth. In this essay, I am going to argue that even though both Schmitt and Sorel see a problem with liberal democracy as lack of clear leadership, they have different approaches to solving the problem. Whilst Schmitt thinks what the people need is a sovereign, Sorel rejects any idea of a leading party and argues what the people need is an inspirational myth. Schmitt and Sorel criticize modern liberal states for being boring and rationalised. Parliamentarians use scientific method of rationalization in seeking the truth hence engaging in endless discussions. Parliamentarism is democratic but is not a democracy as its essence lies in “public deliberation of arguments and counterargument, public debate and discussion without taking democracy into account” (Schmitt, Crisis, 34-35). In this sense, even though they are supposed to represent people’s interest, they rarely do so as they sit in those deliberative committees to discuss own interests. For Sorel and Schmitt, such parliaments comprise only of the elite or bourgeoisies who claim to know the will of the people better since the people have false consciousness.This rationalisation process is not direct and absolute but relative as people have diverse opinions. In Schmitts words, “parliament is a place where particles of reason strewn unequally among humans gather themselves and bring public power under their control” (Crisis, 35). This makes parliament lose touch with the people it is representing increasing chances of its inability to unite them. Rationalism in parliament leads to indecisiveness and inability to deal with threats. The need to compromise makes them to fail to acknowledge an existential threat or conflcit thus weakening the state (Schmitt, Concept, 32). This for Sorel is because parliamentarians seek gradual changes such as increase in wages thereby reducing conflicts and in turn affecting groups’ awareness of their interests (Sorel, Reflections, 125). They also lack vigour to drive a cause as they do not deviate from the norm. Schmitt compares parliamentarism to deism since as deism rejected miracles so do parliamentarians reject exceptions to the norm (Schmitt, political Theology, 36). This according to them is lack of clear leadership or democracy and the solution for Schmitt is having a decisionist sovereign to act in case of emergencies or exceptions which are inherent in the political. Sorel on the other hand, advocates a myth to inspire a great conflict that would destroy classes and end class struggles. Schmitt uses political theology to explain the importance of having an authority in a politic. Political theology is based on the idea that “all concepts of modern theory of state are secularised theological concepts because of their historical development” (Schmitt, Political Theology, 36). As such, the Omnipotent God is equated to the omnipotent lawgiver or state while an exception is equated to a miracle. The main role of the state in this case is making exceptions bearing in mind that there is an ever-possibility of enmity in a politic. The exception is a borderline concpet that applies to an extreme situation which is not predictable and as such, cannot be encompassed by a general norm; it requires extraordinary measures. Such event arises from the chaotic nature of human beings and there are no norms in chaos. Legal order arises out of social contract between the governor and the governed in a democracy and if it is threatened, then there is possibility of returning to this chaotic state (Schmitt, Crisis, 8). However, legal order brought about by the rationalisation process of parliament cannot predict all human actions. For it to make sense, a normal situation must exist. This leads to the question who then decides when the situation is normal. Is it parliament or executive or sovereign? This for Schmitt is a question of identification or originator of general will or point of ascription (Schmitt, Crisis, 29). This leads us to democracy. The essence of democracy is participation by all citizens. In this case, “every and all decision which are taken are only valid for those who themselves decide” (Schmitt, Crisis, 25). This means authority to make laws comes from the people themselves and the individual chosen directly by all people to decide on their behalf is the sovereign. Parliament makes laws through reasoning without regard to democracy hence cannot be the point of ascription. The authority to discern order and chaos thus lies with a decisionist sovereign; he is the point of ascription of laws. Since his authority comes from the people and represents the general will, he gives validity to laws and his decision is abslotute unlike that of parliamnent which is relative. A sovereign is defined by Schmitt as “he who decides on an exception” (Political Theology, 5). Exception means there is lack of jurisdictional competence in the liberal constitution and another authority is needed to offer such competence hence the need for a sovereign. According to Schmitt, “the sovereign decides if there is an extreme emergency as well as what must be done to eliminate it. Although he stands outside the normally valid legal system, he nevertheless belongs to it, for it is he who must decide whether the constitution needs to be suspended in its entirety” (Political Theology, 7). The sovereign stands outside the legal system in that he is not involved in making laws. However, he must give consent to laws as enshrined in the constitution. Without his consent, there would be no legal order as there would be no laws. He belongs to the legal system as he is trusted by the people to fulfil his promise in their interest and thus is not bound by conditions of urgent necessity. The sovereign is not bound by laws and his rule is indivisible hence he only has power to decide in such situations (p.8). This ability to suspend valid law is the mark of sovereignty and proof of state superiority over the law. The state does not cease to exist when law is suspended. However, there is danger should such a leader use that authority to supress other groups and institute new order. In addition, the sovereign also declares war on behalf of the state and nation as a whole, to make peace, and has right to pardon. This entails deciding on friends and enemies of state and taking political action. The enemy in this case is public enemy or hostis and not inimicus (Schmitt, Coccept of Political, 28). Schmitt argues that this friend-enemy distinction is an ever-possibility for every people existing in a political sphere. This is more like Hobbes sovereign whose main duty is peace and defence and so in him lays the essence of commonwealth (Hobbes, Leviathan, 120). Schmitts politic also is characterised by its right to declare war enshrined in the constitution. Sorel adopts the ideas of Karl Marx to explain relations in the bourgeoisie-liberal states.He enumerates two antagonistic classes: Bourgeoisie and proletariat (Sorel, Reflections on Violence, 122).The bourgeoisie are the owners of means of production and seek profit maximisation while proletariat sell their labour for wages to bourgeoisie to survive. The proletarian class is divided into two groups of wage earners with the administration group allying itself to the bourgeoisie. Sorel argues that leaders or parliamentarians engage in utopia promising a bright future for proletarians through gradual changes. This for Sorel is an obstacle to maintaining notion of class struggle as these politicians adjust to domination of bourgeoisie and their aim is to perfect capitalism and not its disappearance (p. 125). Class conflicts are inherent in the system and not about to disappear even if some workers move to the rank of bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie in this case is the enemy of proletarian who must be defeated and destroyed. Sorel argues that “the end must always be catastrophic defeat of the enemy” (Reflections, 110). As such, just as militarists prepare for war, so should the dominated class of proletarian prepare to emancipate itself. The myth is meant to inspire workers to a general strike and hence need not be true. For him “framing of the future in some indeterminate time can be very effective and has few inconviniences and this only happens when it is a question of myths” (p. 115). This myth brings about class consciousness hence bringing out of workers their strongest inclinations. An example is the apocalyptic myth whereby Christians gained hope through the expected return of Christ. Since the myth is not true and the ends envisaged may not be the ends actually realised, is should only be judged as a means of acting in the present and its contents do not matter as “it is only the myth in its entirety which is alone important” (Sorel, Reflections, 117). Contrary to Schmitt that a leader should be the one to inspire action, Sorel is of the view that all proletarians should engage actively in their emancipation and not act passively as observers. Since the effectiveness of the myth is in embracing all aspirations of socialism, it does not matter if the general strike is only imagined. What matters is if the general strike organises all proletarians and their hopes and reasons into “one indivisible unity” (Sorel, 117). As such, unlike in daily strikes where proletarians are divided, the general strike divides the society into “two camps, and only two, in the field of battle” (Sorel, 123). The administrative group which is often allied with management has to decide whom to support. Whereas Schmitt and Sorel differ on the approach to solving the problem of parliamentarism, it is clear that both believe in the need for personal engagement and deep sense of attachment to a cause or lebensphilosophie. For Schmitt, the friend-enemy grouping threatens state existence and a sovereign is needed to decide when this threat is real and action is needed. However, to convince people he must appeal to their emotions through a national myth which is even greater than Sorel’s class myth. He must depict the enemy as monstrous and dangerous who needs to be defeated and utterly destroyed hence declare an exception (Schmitt, Concept, 36). Through this national myth, the citizens are prepared to lay down their lives for state survival. This is the same case for Sorel. For the myth to work, the proletarians must be committed to the cause and actively participate in it and Sorel has faith that the proletarian can unite to emancipate themselves from the bourgeoisie if they only have the instinct for class struggle. For Sorel, “the general strike drugs into revolutionary track everything it touches” hence the line of cleavage is never in danger in disappearing” (Reflections, 125). Conclusion In this essay, I have argued that what the people need to safeguard the existence of the state and free themselves from domination in the modern liberal democratic state is a decisive authority to steer people to a cause. This may be in the form of a decisive sovereign who steers people through a national myth as for Schmitt or a myth which inspires people to a revolution as for Sorel. All that is needed for success is personal engagement and a deep sense of attachment to a cause. Both Schmitt and Sorel criticize parliamentarism for its rationality. They argue that rationalism leading to endless discussions and compromises is a hindrance to reforms as it prevents people or groups from gaining consciouness of their interests. This consciousness they argue can only be gained through existential conflict and in this regard, they introduce the binaries of friend-enemy for Schmitt and bourgeoisie-proletarians for Sorel. Both come to the same conclusion that the enemy or the bourgeoisie is inhuman and a monster that should be destroyed and eliminated. For this reason a decisionist sovereign or a myth to lead the people in destroying them is essential. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited. Richard Tuck. Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, Carl. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schmitt, Carl. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Trans. Ellen Kennedy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Trans. George Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sorel, Georges. Reflections on Violence. Edited by Jeremy Jennings. Cambridge University Press. Read More