A video circulates on the internet of Juan Carlos Monedero where some of the interventions of the professor from Complutense University are recorded (and sarcastically commented on), the university that has opened an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by some of his students. "Carl Schmitt... That bastard was smarter," he expresses at one point in the recording. "He was 'very' smart," he reiterates. In another video, this time on his television program 'La Tuerka', his partner and co-founder of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, admits his weakness for "Schmittian approaches" and reproduces one: "The enemy only understands the language of force."
A quick look through the archives will reveal similar results among the members or heirs of the leftist formation, including Iglesias himself displaying a copy of 'The Theory of the Partisan' in Congress alongside a smiling Íñigo Errejón. A true devotion... to the main legal theorist of Nazism: Carl Schmitt (Plettenberg, 1888 - 1985) actively participated in the legal architecture of the Third Reich and, after its defeat in World War II, did not undergo denazification. Nevertheless, he continued to develop the theories he had written before Adolf Hitler's rise to power, among which stands out his fierce criticism of the parliamentarism of the so-called "liberal democracies." "The sovereign is the one who decides on the exceptional situation," begins his book 'Political Theology' (1922). In fact, the expression "State of exception" must be attributed to him, within his theories that underpin his ideas in defense of authority and have served politicians of all stripes. Thus, in Francoist Spain, he was one of the bastions of 'Schmittian' thought, thanks to the support, among others, of Manuel Fraga.
Over time, Schmitt's range of influence has expanded to reach left-wing populisms in Latin America. Now, it has even reached the US, in this case through the tech magnate Peter Thiel, a declared admirer of the thinker's postulates and intellectual leader of the most anti-traditional government Trumpism. "He who saves his country does not violate any law," said Donald Trump recently, in a 'Schmittian' nod that sparked a flood of articles against him.
"The democratic principle only makes sense and is justified if it fulfills the unitary will of the people, it is not compatible with pluralism."
But, what does Carl Schmitt have that inflames and 'sulibeya' such disparate politicians? Pedro Lomba, a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Society at the Complutense University of Madrid, answers: "The simplest answer is that he is a great theorist of reactionary thought, of anti-liberal thought in the classical sense of the term." Lomba emphasizes that Schmitt positions himself as a fierce critic of parliamentarism, liberalism, and the Rule of Law, proposing instead a strong politics centered on the figure of a leader or caudillo. "Apart from being a very powerful thinker who writes with magnificent prose, he is used by both the most radical right and the left," he adds.
This appeal transcends ideologies because Schmitt offers an intellectual tool for those who reject Enlightenment ideals. In Spain, his influence became evident during Francoism, with figures like Manuel Fraga and disciples like Francisco Javier Conde, who welcomed him as a reference. "However, in recent years, all the people from Podemos have made a vindication of his figure," says Lomba. "The populist left has found in Schmitt an echo for its idea of politics as confrontation."
José Luis Villacañas, historian, professor of Philosophy at the Complutense University, and author of books such as 'Power and Conflict: Essays on Carl Schmitt' (Biblioteca nueva, 2008) and 'The Slow Learning of Podemos' (La catarata, 2017), provides a complementary perspective: "Schmitt is back because the world we live in is a world in crisis. And if there is something Schmitt was a master at, it was thinking about politics in times of exception. Hence his effort to offer, from a very young age, a real, profound, and powerful alternative to Lenin."
Villacañas argues that Schmitt read the Bolshevik leader with precision and sought to demonstrate that conservative forces could also have their own revolution and dictatorship, thus disputing to the left the monopoly of politics as a struggle. "Naturally, the defenders of Lenin see him as a reflection of Lenin because both are theorists of dictatorship," he explains.
However, the historian qualifies that the more current Schmitt for contemporary leftists is not the Nazi jurist, but the one from 'The Nomos of the Earth' and 'Theory of the Partisan', where he praises Mao and Fidel Castro as producers of an anti-imperialist order, especially against the United States. "It is this repudiation of the American empire, the victor of Germany in the end, that makes Schmitt appealing to the left," he asserts.
Javier Redondo, professor of Politics and Government at the Francisco de Vitoria University in Madrid, agrees on the relevance of Schmitt but focuses on the historical context and current polarization: "He is very relevant because the Interwar period is very relevant." Although he rejects direct analogies between that time and the present -"the characteristics of Interwar politics are not those of today"-, he acknowledges that the current polarization evokes certain dynamics that Schmitt knew how to interpret. "He understands that the constitution is a matter of will, of application," Redondo argues. That is, the decision as an expression of power: "More than a norm, it is a will, and it is the will to interpret it in one way or another." This idea resonates today in phrases like the one cited by Donald Trump, but also in others by Pedro Sánchez: "It is constitutional what the Constitutional Court says."
Strong leaders against chaos
In his prologue to one of the most well-known books by the German theorist, 'The Concept of the Political' (1932), Rafael de Agapito summarizes some of his most conflicting points. "For Schmitt, the democratic principle only makes sense and is justified insofar as it makes possible a unitary will of the people," he says. "Consequently, it is not compatible with pluralism."
Therefore, the concept of democracy must be understood exclusively from the idea of equality. "Freedom does not correspond to democracy; it is a principle of the liberal-bourgeois conception, based on a moral orientation according to humanitarian and individualistic ideas, and obviously lacks a democratic foundation," Rafael de Agapito argues. "Democracy, on the contrary, has as its content the homogeneity of the people, its equality, anchored in the fundamental decision in favor of a certain guiding idea, which is equally valid for everyone. And in this sense, this substantial equality does not prevent a part of the people from being excluded from it... With this, he resolves the problem of reconciling both notions, and does so in favor of unity, homogeneity, leaving aside diversity, the difference that comes from the recognition of freedom."
Lomba picks up the historical thread to explain why Schmitt continues to seduce the extremes: "In the 1930s, he goes so far as to say that the true sovereign is the Führer, the guide, the Duce in Italy." This exaltation of caudillismo, combined with his rejection of the Rule of Law, increases his appeal among those seeking to legitimize strong leadership, whether from the right or the left. "The Rule of Law is the sovereignty of the law, that there is no one above it to repeal or modify it. But Schmitt thinks that the sovereign cannot be a legal system, but a person," Lomba insists.
"Schmitt thinks that the sovereign cannot be a legal system, but a person."
Thus, this criticism of liberalism finds an echo in the left-wing populism of the Argentine Ernesto Laclau or in the reactionary right that sees in Schmitt a defense of authority against chaos. Villacañas delves into Schmitt's international appeal: "His theory of the nomos of the earth is a profoundly anti-imperialist theory, in the sense of resisting the possibility of a single hegemonic power." In a world where American hegemony is crumbling, Schmitt proposes a "political pluriverse" of large spaces that define their own rules.