Sandrine Baume discusses her The Review of Politics article

good morning sreen thank you for joining us today good morning austo thank you for inviting me so we are very delighted to welcome you to discuss your most recent article entitled kmids modif fested rejection of political compromises so it is published in Open Access in the review of politics since 2020 uh we know that you've been conducting Research into the various objections to political compromises my question is why in this article have you decided to focus on kmit who is after all a very conservative and authoritarian thinker thank you austo um I think there are three main reasons why I focused on Schmid in my paper to begin with his work especially between the 1920s and the 1930s presents a constant complex and explicit critique of political compromise then I believe that a detailed analysis of Schmid's objections help us to better understand what it means by the notion of political Unity political Unity also has a great deal to do with decisions which for him should be neither negotiated nor moderated and finally my examination of the objections to compromise makes it possible to clarify Schmid links with populist vot and what in Nell are the main points of Schmid's criticisms of of compromise essentially Schmidt articulates I think five major normative critics against compromise firstly he adopts an anti-pluralist perspective Schmid sees compromises as a symbol of political fragmentations caused by political parties that according to him pursue only their particular interests secondly um Schmid uh criticizes the relativism of compromises that are shaped without any consideration for political principles according to Schmid compromises are part of a realistic V and Sh or a realistic vision of the world thirdly uh Schmid emphasizes the need for consistency and this refers to a particular conception of decisions that should attest to a single and firm will fourthly um Schmid adopts an agonistic point of view this means that he sees compromises as the attenuation of the dividing line between public friend and enemy and this dividing line must remain intact for Schmid and perhaps finally there is an anti-elitist perspective in his considerations of compromise essentially with regard to parliamentary Elites that perceive to anually bargain at the expense of the interests of the rest of the population this is this is very interesting but I wonder about the originality of these objections because in in 2022 you and yanis papadopulos published an article that presented a more comprehensive a more Global inventory of criticisms uh of political compromise what does shimit bring to this typology you had established I think my article on Schmid puts our 2020 to typology to the test on the one end it confirm it on the other it completes and I think it complicates it broadly speaking the 2022 typology offers fairly good coverage of Schmitt objections but this with two important uh nuances to begin with uh SCH smitin objections all have clearly anti-partisan anti-parliamentary and authoritarian flavor which gives them a particular coloration that over objections considered in our paper of 2022 notably those of Ronald workin do not have then uh there is something new it's Schmid's anti-pluralist objection this anti-pluralist objection is actually the complete inversion of the pluralist objection that we identify in 2022 as a reminder the pluralist objection considers that compromises reduce the diversity of voices political voices notably by forcing the more radical curant to water down their positions Schmid by contrast considers that compromises accentuate the fragmentation of the body politic by allowing political differences to persist that are actually only temporarily uh reconciled and this is an objection that did not appear in the initial uh inventory okay but let me ask you uh uh where does shitz detestation of compromise come from does it have anything to do with the the context in which M formulated this criticism absolutely austo Schmid's negative assessment of compromise in the 1920s was part of a particular historical context the viar Republic Schmid perceived the viar Constitution as a product of multiple compromises compromises that me considered fragile inconsistent and above all lacking in political orientation and then in the early 1930s Schmid's objections to compromise became part of his apology for the f r and the nazzi regime which he claimed cut short all political compromise also by banishing the multiparty system right so this historical background seems indeed to be very very important to understand shit's reactions to to compromise but do such criticisms uh resonate today good question austo yes um it's striking that Schmid's objections to comprom mind resonate today with certain distinctive features of populist vote firstly uh homogeneous conception of the people which coincides with Schmid's desire to see multi-party politic disappear secondly um a valorization of the Vox POI which for Schmid is associated with a plebiscitary conception of democracy and thirdly an anti-elitist component which forid targets political parties and parliamentarians in particular it should be noted that his anti-elitism never concerns the president of the rash in Germany so um these convergencies I assume allow us to claim that Schmid's political fot belongs to authoritarian populism which As We Know as tangible Expressions today in that case um on your opinion what could we say to Schmid to counter uh his detestation of compromise I think we can offer an objection to Schmid that was already made to him in the 1930s notably by Hans sken building uh political reflection on the presupposition of political Unity is a fiction especially in a democratic regime so in the inevitable pluralism that characterizes Democratic politics compromises can be perceived as essential actually they allow majorities to be formed in order to enact reforms while avoiding and your arm to minorities M that seems to me an interesting point however do you think that there is anything to be eventually uh retained from uh these shimian criticisms of compromise oh hard question austo perhaps um Schmid insistent question about the responsibility of political actors in collective decision making processes where many players actors are involved in today's literature this is referred to as a problem of many hands h very interesting so um thank so much srin for sharing your insights with us today and um I really appreciate the overview you gave us to auor recent article published I repeat in the review of of politics I look forward to Future discussions about your research thanks so much thank you very much AO for your time for the opportunity to present my research results I also hope that we will have further occasions to discuss my ongoing research thank you again AO

Channel: Cambridge University Press

Views: 142

Keywords: Carl Schmitt, political compromise

Id: MRbykmLY2sg

Length: 10min 18sec (618 seconds)

Published: Thu May 09 2024