칼 슈미트의 자유주의국가 비판

In this article, I review Schmitt’s concept of the political and state theory, then his critique of liberalism. Schmitt is famous(or notorious) for his radical critique of western liberalism. He tries to reveal an important paradox inscribed in the very nature of liberal democracy. He claims that liberalism is incapable of successfully realizing substantial democracy. He is convinced that liberalism and democracy do not fit together. Even though the conflict between the two principles may be concealed, the inherent contradiction continues to exist. Schmitt asserts that liberalism negates democracy and democracy negates and that parliamentary democracy, since it consists in the articulation between liberalism and democracy, is therefore a nonviable regime. The principle of rule of law, one which lies at the core of liberalism, suggests that the primacy of abstract normative principle over political decisions, According to Schmitt, however, the opposite is true. Normative principles can not have an effect on human society unless they are interpreted by particular agent and applied to particular circumstances. Furthermore, he criticizes liberal neutrality. Liberal neutrality does not mean that liberals abstain from their purposes politically. The liberal approaches to politics, however, is purely instrumental, because it is only for the safeguarding private and economic interests that liberals engage in politics. They hide their particular goals behind allegedly neutral or even universal normative standard. From this perspective, liberal neutrality ultimately amount to hypocrisy.