131214840-Carl-Schmitt

Page 80
out a single, and in fact completely "moldy," "intellectual basis of modern parliamentarism"
and ignored all the rest.
To this something else must be added that is frequently disregarded in the literature of
intellectual history: The worth and vitality of a political institution in no way depends on the
quality and persuasiveness of the ideologies advanced for its justification. First, because
books and articles can miss or ignore important arguments or events, but also because every
institution "lives and develops" and goes through metamorphoses of purpose and changes in
structure. It is, by the way, not entirely correct to say that no creative public discussion takes
place any longer in modern parliament. There have only been changes in its structure.
Creative discussion by parliamentarians has simply withdrawn into committees and the
closed chambers of the parties or of the cabinet, into the interparty negotiations, and into
discussions with experts and economic interests. Open public discussion in the plenum
certainly means nothing for these but it continues to mean a great deal for the education of
opinion outside parliament, in that it is read by journalists and other politicians and is
consciously or unconsciously taken into consideration.
Perhaps Carl Schmitt is in danger of overemphasizing the literary appearances of things and
is not always conscious that theoretical justifications for political institutions must be
accepted with caution. They are not always true and seldom complete. Whoever supports the
establishment or preservation of an institution certainly cannot often say, for instance, that he
is only acting out of a pessimistic resignation or that he only defends something because it is
the lesser evil; if he wants to be effective, he has to talk positively and awaken optimistic
illusions, even believe in these himself, as long as he carries on the fight. If the illusions
prove themselves deceptive afterward, an institution is still not, by a long way, finished
because of that.
What Schmitt calls "the relative rationalism of parliamentary thought" has certainly "lost
some of its obviousness." Even more than that, it has lost all its obviousness. Whoever pleads
for the ludi cartacei
Create PDF with PDF4U. If you wish to remove this line, please click here to purchase the full version