What does Schmitt mean when he argues that the Friend/Enemy distinction is the key defining feature of the Political?
Schmitt’s theory of the Friend/ Enemy distinction is probably his most famous contribution to political thought and is the main focus of his book The Concept of the Political (1932). Defining the political is important to Schmitt as he is known as a fierce opponent to Liberalism. He criticises Liberalism for blurring the lines between the political, legal, economic and technological as he, similar to Hannah Arendt, categorically distinguishes the political from those other aspects of the State. He claims that the Friend/ Enemy distinction is ‘to which political actions and motivations can be reduced’and even if a state has potential peaceful dealings with the designated ‘enemy’ they are still ‘the other, the stranger, and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specifically intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.’ He goes on to say ‘What always matters is only the possibility of conflict.’ The important aspect is the possibility of conflict, according to Schmitt, so the specific counts of war or aggression between two different groups or countries is unimportant, all that matters is that there was potential for conflict in order for the Friend/ Enemy distinction to be important. The term ‘conflict’ is not used figuratively, as Schmitt clearly states that he uses the term Friend/ Enemy because they offer the implication of ‘the real possibility of killing.’ When examining what Schmitt means when he argues that the Friend/ Enemy distinction is the key defining feature of the Political it is important to consider these main points: how Schmitt’s advocacy for Sovereignty affects or is affected by the distinction, whether Schmitt actively seeks conflict and if MAKE A POINT HEREEE
As an eminent jurist, he specifically seeks to make a distinction between the legal and the political and this is due to his view of the Friend/ Enemy distinction. The law is based on the criteria of what is and is not in line with legal rules whereas the political is based on the criteria of Friend and Enemy and the recognition of the Friend and Enemy cannot be foreseen by any law. Furthermore, the political must be outside of the boundaries of the legal due to the fact that the identification of an Enemy may lead to actions that do not align with the legal norms in order to protect the State. Schmitt’s views on Sovereignty go hand in hand with the Friend/ Enemy distinction because the Sovereign is the individual who is able to take the decision of stepping out of the law in extreme circumstances. ‘Sovereign is he who decides over the state of exception,’ says Schmitt in Political Theology (1922). The role of the Sovereign is to maintain legal order. In order for the legal aspect of the State to remain effective there must be someone outside of the boundaries of the law who can be an authority in times of conflict, that is to say in times when the State is faced with an Enemy. The Friend/ Enemy distinction means that the Sovereign must examine the political atmosphere and take the side of the Friend and oppose the Enemy even if that means taking steps outside of the legal norm.
A key complaint against Schmitt’s glorification of the political over the legal is that Schmitt only emphasised the supposed weakness of the law in emergencies due to his wish for an Authoritarian leadership of the Weimar Republic. If the Friend/ Enemy distinction is the defining feature of the political and the political is outside of the boundaries of the constitution, that makes the rights of the citizens of that State vulnerable. Therefore, any political opponent can have their rights removed as Schmitt says:
‘Only the actual participants can correctly recognize, understand, and judge the concrete situation and settle the extreme case of conflict. Each participant is in a position to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence.’
This hostile nihilism can clearly be connected with the Enabling Act (1933) which removed the rights of German citizens and gave Hitler plenary powers, effectively converting Hitler’s government into a legal dictatorship. Schmitt’s involvement with the Nazi Party is well documented; often referred to as the ‘Crown Jurist of the Third Reich’, Schmitt used his background in law to ensure Hitler’s takeover of Germany was technically legal and because of the weaknesses in the constitution of the Weimar Republic – Article 76 meant that revisions to the constitution were simple to implement – this was relatively straight forward. However, The Concept of the Political was written a year before the Enabling Act and Schmitt has been arguing for Sovereignty since 1922 so it is easy to argue that Schmitt was not supporting the Friend/ Enemy distinction in connection with emergency powers of the Sovereign in order to promote the Nazi agenda.
Nonetheless, it can be argued that the Friend/ Enemy distinction was a scare tactic to initiate more powerful leadership in the Weimar Republic. George Schwab claims in his introduction to The Concept of the Political that Schmitt wanted the Weimar Republic to be stronger and in order to do that the President, Hindenburg, had to be able to prevent parties that were intent on subverting the State from being able to run for parliamentary or government elections. This is because, says Schwab, Schmitt recognised that the both the political left and right were able to use the law as a weapon against the Weimar and he wanted to prevent a Totalitarian state by giving more power to Hindenburg. Karl Lowith claims that Schmitt’s Friend/ Enemy distinction is about a glorification of violence, and it is this interpretation that leads one to the point of view that Schmitt’s focus is defining the Enemy, not the Friend. In fact, John P. McCormick says that Schmitt’s definition of the political is ‘the trans-historically legitimated human propensity toward violent existential conflict’ due to his obsession with conflict. Schmitt uses his high status in the Weimar Republic to promote a nihilistic viewpoint and advocates for conflict between the Weimar and its political opponents. When reflecting on the period of the rise of the Nazi Party it is easy to assume that any actions that were not made to directly benefit them were positive, but it is clear that Schmitt’s Friend/ Enemy distinction is a call for conflict and his definition of it being key to the political is in aid of his desire for Sovereignty.