Carl Schmitt
Many political philosophers have dealt with the issue of conflict, one of them being Carl Schmitt, whose theory of friends and enemies is currently in vogue with many political scientists (the fact that Schmitt was a Nazi does not diminish the value of his theory, or its application in the analysis of reality).
According to Schmitt, the friend-enemy distinction is what defines politics. He does not attach any moral or personal meaning to these categories: the enemy is ‘the other’, he who objectively antagonises us, and by doing so helps us define ourselves. Friends and enemies are also contingent and circumstantial; they can vary.
From this it is easy to infer that, despite the combative nature of the friend-enemy relationship, the ultimate aim is not eliminate the other. There is a creative tension between antagonistic groups that keeps the political wheel spinning. There is a degree of confrontation that is politically healthy, and any attempt to suppress it – be it through violence or by an idealistic ‘universal consensus’ – goes against the very notion of politics.
In times of a highly polarised political landscape like the one we live in Latin America in general, and in Argentina in particular, many see conflict in a negative light, as a inhibitor to any kind of constructive political activity. However, conflict can also mean that there is a genuine debate taking place in society, with a plurality of points of view and alternative political projects. The question is, at what point does the confrontation become unhealthy?
One obvious answer to this question is: when it becomes violent. Schmitt thought that the greater the antagonism – the more it challenged a group’s very existence – the more ‘political’ it was, with the greatest antagonism of all being war. There was a time in Argentina when violence was seriously considered by many as a legitimate political option. That is not the case anymore and the threat of violent uprisings nowadays is, fortunately, negligible.
September's Cacerolazo (photo by Marc Rogers)
Our democratic political system is the best way to channel and manage conflict that we have come up with so far. And it’s based (ideally) on public debate and the free exchange of ideas. Insults and threats annul that debate, making it about people rather than ideas.
Another symptom of an unhealthy confrontation, one that is much more relevant to us right now than the threat of violence, is fanaticism. When politics becomes a dogma, debate becomes impossible. Unfortunately, this is one symptom we are seeing too much of at the moment in Argentina, and it seems to be here to stay.
There is a difference between passion in the defence of one’s ideas, and the kind of fanaticism that turns life into a football match. When that kind of irrationality takes over, meaningful discussion goes out the window, and, at the individual level, people risk becoming pawns in the power struggles of others. A moral discourse is often introduced into the debate, which becomes a confrontation between good and evil – both concepts alien to the political categories of friend and enemy as described before.
Once again, the much talked-about issue of political representation could be key to bringing the public debate back on track. Well thought out and articulated political programmes on ‘both sides’ of the spectrum (government and opposition) are a necessary base to ensure the discussion is centred on ideas and not on people or irrational loyalties. They would help define friends and enemies, strengthen ideological positions, and channel the conflict that true democracy stands on.
“The desire to eliminate the enemy (even if symbolically) is anti-political, it shows an unhealthy disregard for the political system. “
The examples you give from recent cacerolazos, as you suggest are probably symbolic but could be worrying. Personally I find these more worrying: rule by decree, recent attacks on private property, AFIP investigations on particular people, open political attacks, insults and threats to the judicial branch,..to name just a few. None of these are symbolic. Some if not all, will have physical repercussions, (much like violence.) None of these examples show a healthy regard for a political system. They show intent to “eliminate the other.”
I agree with “bringing the public debate back on track.” but both sides need to start listening and not ignoring one another. (Oh,and not trying to eliminate the other.)
I have to admit, since someone else opened door,….The fact “ that Schmitt was a Nazi does not diminish the value of his theory. ” Well, it doesn’t help either. I find it disturbing and “worrying,” the parallels between this government and excerpts of Schimitt’s essay Die Diktatur. I don’t know why you chose Carl Schimitt theroy as the basis of an argument. Are you suggesting Cristina’s model follows this line of thinking?
The problems democracy faces in South America are not entirely peculiar to South America. Italy, Spain, France and Germany have all had problems over the years and much of what Carl Schmitt says reflects a (European) continental view of democracy and the turbulent period he lived in. Democracy was developed, invented if you like, by the English middle class and, while it had its roots in mediaeval England, it began its modern development in the 17th century. As time went on royal power and the power of the nobility was slowly eaten away. Merit, rather than birth, could and often was, rewarded, especially among the merchant class and that was the class that built the British Empire, which gave great scope to enterprising and ambitious commoners. When establishing a settler colony, English settlers could have no fewer political rights than they had in England, one of which was no taxation without representation. There was very little interference from the mother country (expensive for the English taxpayer), hence the democratic tradition in the U.S., Canada and so on. The Spanish tradition, which Argentina has inherited, was one of a strong king supported by a strong church and a fundamental dislike of people who live by making money. Honest people worked the land and in the service of the king or the Church. Control was as absolute as the Spanish could make it given the distances and geography involved. CFK and the Peronists come from that tradition. It is a tradition that does not ascribe to the English “loyal opposition” tradition, but sees opponents as heretics to be dealt with by today’s equivalent of the Inquisition.