Yes, dear readers our democracy is being assailed or prorogued here at home while our boys yonder are “stabilizing” Haiti and Afghanistan. The troops over there are supposed to be bringing our democratic values to those backward savages. Meanwhile, the reactionary “ideological-Taliban” maintains a stranglehold on power in Ottawa. Neo-liberalism (let’s privatise all public services and Parliament too!) runs amok unbridled and unhindered by any oversight from elected members. Evading all accountability has become the new norm now. Sabotaging the parliamentary process is considered quite” routine”. Closing down inquires and committees are a common procedure. Previously drafted bills and proposed legislation goes into prorogation- elimination mode with a call to Rideau Hall and the "Queen of the Northern Kingdom"; who has so far been outdone in history, only by good old Hindenburg (1). The firing of ombudsmen and or regulatory officials, who dare impede or counterbalance the great leader's will, or who are not supine, obedient enough to his orders has become prefunctory. Is this democracy or an autocracy in the making, reminicent of medieval times?
Meanwhile, a quasi- security state apparatus is slowly being put into place to silence the growing dissent and to keep us safe from terror. Yet, Parliament remains closed. An "underground Parliament" is perhaps needed. Or a Parliament in exile, whose members in troubled times such as these, must flee to freer lands where Parliamentary democracy still exists, is tolerated and respected (including the rule of law). In an extreme case, after the Nazi invasion of France, the Czechoslovak republic, Poland, their legitimate governments and leaders fled into exile and went to Chruchillian England while tyranny reigned supreme on the continent.
If this sordid totalitarian circus continues, then perhaps our opposition MPs, may one day have to go to Australia, New Zealand or even Ghana; members of the commonwealth which still have vibrant and functioning parliaments... I know, this country is still open for business and welcomes the boundless bienfaisance of foreign investment and the mail still gets delivered, so do the pension cheques. Even the Olympics are going ahead despite the lack of snow. But then in Mussolini’s time, the trains ran punctually in Italy and the mail-man didn't miss a day. In 1936, Hitler hosted one of the most successfully managed Olympic Games ever, in which Germany won a total of 89 medals more than any other nation present at the international event. And so what? An effective and efficient dictatorship is better than a "messy democracy" which just muddles through? Maybe it is...
This brings me to Carl Schmitt. Who you may ask? A great ( in the sinister sense) German political philosopher and jurist whom Hitler much admired. Schmitt provided the theoretical foundations for the establishment of a one man “Fuhrer state”. He argued that a state or a functioning society needs dictatorial powers in order to be run effectively. The executive is entitled to exceptional powers in exceptional times (such as during wars and periods of great economic distress), just like the ones we are living in today. Furthermore, if there’s an attack on the state ( a terrorist action blamed by Hitler on the communists, such as the "Reichstag fire" of 1933 in Berlin) then the case of an "Ausnahmezustand" or a “state of emergency” justifies the wielding of total (or unfettered by a legislature) executive power in such a situation, if and when, it should arise.
He also saw the legislative process as a major drawback or, as almost a drag on the effective governance of a nation. In 1923, he wrote an essay critical of party politics; the horse trading and behind the scenes bargaining which goes on in a liberal democracy. “Schmitt supported the emergence of totalitarian power structures in his paper "Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des
heutige Parlamentarismus" (roughly: "The Intellectual-Historical Situation of Today's Parliamentarianism", translated as The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy by Ellen Kennedy). Schmitt criticized the institutional practices of liberal politics, arguing that they are justified by a faith in rational discussion and openness that is at odds with actual parliamentary party politics, in which outcomes are hammered out in smoke-filled rooms by party leaders (1)".
Hence, he inferred that the parliamentary process was less than transparent , representative and even more ineffective ( does this remind you of someone?) than it appeared or claimed to be. His theories de-stigmatized the “taboo” formerly associated with dictatorial rule in Germany. Schmitt provided Hitler with an ideological framework to seize total power and also gave him the moral justification he needed, to permanently suspend parliament in the 1930s. In the meanwhile, may I suggest, we all polish up on 20th century German poltical theorists, just to be prepared for what might come next.
(1) Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg, German President who played a supporting but key role in the Nazi "Machtergreifung" (Seizure of Power) in 1933.
(2) This passage is sourced from the "Wikipidia" reference on Carl Schmitt.
The site for the Vancouver local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.