Carl Schmitt: Politics as the Distinction Between Friend and Enemy

The Most Uncomfortable Political Philosopher

Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) was one of the sharpest political thinkers of the 20th century and a committed Nazi. He joined the NSDAP in 1933 and participated in the legislative justification of Nazi laws. This makes reading him ethically uncomfortable—and intellectually necessary, because his ideas are influential, precise, and dangerous.

Schmitt defined the political through the distinction of “friend — enemy.” This is not an ethical, aesthetic, or economic distinction—it is specifically political: the enemy is not a bad person and not a competitor, but the other, alien in a sufficiently intense sense as to require conflict. Politics is a sphere of intense associations and dissociations.

Sovereignty and Exception

The famous beginning of “Political Theology” (1922): “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” Sovereignty is manifested not in normal life, but in the state of emergency: whoever decides that the constitution is suspended—that is sovereign. Norms apply to normal situations; power over the exceptional situation is real power.

This is an important observation, independent of Schmitt’s Nazism: the state of emergency as an instrument for expanding the authority of the executive branch is a well-documented historical phenomenon. The USA after 9/11—the Patriot Act, CIA prisons, drone programs under the guise of “extraordinary” powers.

Critique of Liberal Parliamentarianism

Schmitt criticized liberal parliamentarianism: it is based on the idea of discussion and public reason. In reality—it is an exchange of interests, not a rational discussion. Parliament is a theater, behind the scenes of which real decisions are made.

This critique has been adopted both from the right (fascists) and from the left (Marxists). It does not necessarily lead to fascism—but fascism used it. Importantly, the sharpness of criticism of liberalism does not mean the alternatives are correct.

Habermas responded to Schmitt: yes, real parliamentarianism is imperfect. This is not a reason to reject it—it is a challenge for reform. The “ideal communicative situation” is a normative guideline, not a description of reality.

Question for reflection: Schmitt argued that liberal “neutrality” is an illusion; interests are hidden behind it. What “neutral rules” in your organization or industry actually serve specific interests?