from The World and Japan 100 years from now How will the Internet change the world?
General Will, Enthusiasm and Dictatorship
Rousseau’s idea of “the general will” is probably closer to “wild enthusiasm. However, “the general will,” which is close to enthusiasm, naturally leads to dictatorship. This “enthusiasm is what creates the general will, not indirect democracy” corresponds to the interpretation of Carl Schmitt, a jurist who strongly supported the Nazi regime, on the general will in his book “Dictatorship. This is a very good interpretation, but in the end, it was designed to affirm Hitler’s dictatorship.
- The reference to the “general will” in Carl Schmidt’s book “dictatorship” (Die Diktatur) is an important interpretation of the connection between Rousseau’s thought and dictatorship. Schmitt’s thought emphasized the decisive aspects of law and politics and theorized the legitimacy of dictatorship by focusing in particular on the “state of exception” and “sovereignty.”
The following is a characteristic part of Schmidt’s original text (presented here in Japanese translation).
“The sovereign is the one who makes decisions in the state of exception. And by that decision the general will takes shape and the true communal will is born.”
Schmitt argues here that in exceptional circumstances, when the normal legal order does not work, the sovereign dictator has the power to make decisions, and it is those decisions that embody the “general will” of the community. He argues that the general will does not just vaguely exist, but has meaning only when it is articulated and put into action by the leader.
Underlying this interpretation is Schmitt’s skepticism of the “democratic system” and his criticism of the distortion of the general will by indirect democracy (representative government). Schmitt’s defense of dictatorship and Rousseau’s ideas resonate with Rousseau’s emphasis on the “general will” and his view that politics through direct decision and leadership forms the true communal will.
However, these interpretations by Schmidt became the theoretical basis for justifying Hitler’s dictatorship following the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. For Schmidt, the decisions of a strong leader and the subsequent enthusiastic support of the people were the embodiment of the general will, which in turn supported the legitimacy of the dictatorship.
In summary, Schmitt reinterpreted the “general will” from Rousseau’s ideal as “a decision made by a leader in a state of exception” and linked it to the justification of dictatorship. This interpretation worked to affirm dictatorship while criticizing the imperfections of democracy.
I don’t understand why this sentence alone affirms a dictatorship.
In a normal democracy, decisions are made through procedures and debate, but Schmidt criticized this process as slow and ineffective in states of exception. In other words, Schmidt believed that if normal democratic procedures were followed, it would be unable to respond to emergency situations and protect the order and security of society as a whole.
This is where “sovereign” becomes important. Schmitt said, “The sovereign is the one who makes decisions in a state of exception. In other words, he believed that a strong leader, such as a dictator, could give concrete form to the general will and protect the stability of the community by making the necessary decisions in an emergency situation.
For this reason, Schmitt emphasized “the ability to make quick decisions” as the logic for affirming dictatorship. In his view, democracy works in normal times, but in times of emergency, power is concentrated and a dictator capable of immediate decision-making is needed to maintain or restore society. And it is this decision that is seen as representing the general will.
In essence, Schmidt believed that a dictator’s ability to make quick decisions in a state of exception would serve to maintain order and stability in society as well as protect the interests of the whole. This idea was used as a theory to justify Hitler’s dictatorship under the Nazi regime.
Contingency Management So you are saying that democracy is too slow to be beneficial? I think that is correct. I think the direction of progress of civilization is for technological progress to produce “faster democracy.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/一般意志と熱狂と独裁政治 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.