The question of parliamentary democracy

That Americans face a crisis in representative democracy is a matter of common knowledge. It is daily demonstrated by the paralysis of Congress to pass important legislation. Carl Schmitt, writing during a period of similar paralysis in the Weimar Republic, argued that the crisis is inherent in the very notion of parliamentary or representative democracy. While the parliamentary principle emphasizes contending parties and reasoned debates, the democratic principle is one of unification, one where the outvoted minority submits to the majority. Doing so, the minority “know that they have mistaken the content of the general will,” which is, inherently, unitary. This leads to the fact that democracy can, following its principles, suspend itself. Thus, the members of the Reichstag who passed the Enabling Act on March 23, 1933 could say that this Act suspending parliament expressed the general will. Rule by decree rather than through parliament was, they could claim, the choice of the popular will. After examining Schmitt's position, this article considers Arendt's response, which involves a unique definition of political thinking. In her view, this involves the politics of public space and of public identities established by public actions. As such, it involves negotiation, compromise, and, most importantly,promises made and kept. The paper concludes by considering what it would take to overcome the current crisis in representative democracy.