131214840-Carl-Schmitt

Page 3
thing—all these are interesting and in part also correct observations. But they do not
constitute the intellectual foundations of a specifically intended institution. Parliamentarism
exists today as a method of government and a political system. Just as everything else that
exists and functions tolerably, it is useful—no more and no less. It counts for a great deal that
even today it functions better than other untried methods, and that a minimum of order that is
today actually at hand would be endangered by frivolous experiments. Every reasonable
person would concede such arguments. But they do not carry weight in an argument about
principles. Certainly no one would be so undemanding that he regarded an intellectual
foundation or a moral truth as proven by the question, What else? 8
All specifically parliamentary arrangements and norms receive their meaning first through
discussion and openness. This is especially true of the fundamental principle that is still
recognized constitutionally, although practically hardly still believed in today, that the
representative is independent of his constituents and party; it applies to the provisions
concerning freedom of speech and immunity of representatives, the openness of
parliamentary proceedings, and so forth. 9 These arrangements would be unintelligible if the
principle of public discussion were no longer believed in. It is not as if one could ascribe
other principles retrospectively and at will to an institution, and if its hitherto existing
foundations collapse, just insert any sort of substitute arguments. Certainly the same
institution can serve different practical purposes and thus allow various practical
justifications. There is a "heterogeneity of purposes," shifts in meanings from the practical
point of view, and functional changes in practical means, but there is no heterogeneity of
principles. If we assume with Montesquieu, for example, that the principle of monarchy is
honor, 10 then this principle cannot be foisted onto a democratic republic any more than a
monarchy could be founded on the principle of open discussion. Indeed, a feeling for the
specificity of principles seems to have disappeared and an unlimited substitution to have
taken its place. In the review by Thoma mentioned
Create PDF with PDF4U. If you wish to remove this line, please click here to purchase the full version