Carl Schmitt: the Concept of the Political

Carl Schmitt: the Concept of the Political The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency (Benjamin: 1999:248) The pinnacle of great politics is the moment in which the enemy comes into view in concrete clarity as the enemy.(Schmitt: 1963:1) The purity of pÏÅ'lemos or the enemy, whereby Schmitt would define thepolitical, remains unattainable†¦ no politics has ever been adequate toits concept.(Derrida: 1997:114) I Why Hegel Died Schmitt begins Staat, Bewegung, Volk by stating that with the rise of the Nazi regime, Hegel died. By this, he did not mean that German Idealist philosophy had died, nor that the idea of the German state had died, far from it. Rather, Schmitt identified Hegelwith the bureaucratic class of the Bourgeois; Hegel died when the bureaucratic state was no longer a possibility, and the total or pure state emerged as a possibility. It is this attempt to find a pure politics upon which to base the coming community that characterises Schmitt’s work. Der Bergriff desPolitischen (1963) is a vital text for Schmitt’s argument. In it, he lays out his fundamental distinction between friend and enemy that hebelieves is the definition of politics. From this basic antagonism,Schmitt argues for a total state, which can provide the obedience andsecurity that liberal contractualist theories are unable to offer. Thistotal state allows the enemy to come into view in ‘concrete clarity.’Thus, the total state for Schmitt offers the transmutation of the enemy: friend relationship in the state of nature into the politics ofthe total state, where the sovereign can command the power over lifeand the power to name the enemy. It is only such a state, Schmittargues, that can resurrect the political from the morbid repetition ofthe bourgeois; only a total state can make clear the nature of sovereignty as an exc eption. This essay will analyse how Schmitt’s thought evolved in the historical context of the Weimar republic. It will lay out Schmitt’s critique of bourgeois thought in the context of the Nietzscheanleitmotif underlying many of the thinkers (Jà ¼nger, Spengler) of theperiod. It will then explain how Schmitt attempts to resolve thisproblem by using Hobbes to rethink the notion of the political, and byrelying on the state of exception to guarantee the power of the law. What is noticeable today is the extent to which scholars of the leftuse Schmitt. When Schmitt republished Der Bergriff in 1963, it was inan intellectual climate dominated by the Frankfurt school and theirreinterpretation of Marx. However, contrary to appearances andSchmitt’s intention, his work shares many characteristics with Adorno:both attack the notion of Enlightenment reason; both see reason as ableto co-exist with myth (though for Schmitt this is positive, for Adornocatastrophic). What is instructive about this convergence is the degreeto which what separated the thinkers of the Left from Schmitt is amatter of degrees. This issue will be explored further in this essay. This essay will argue that Schmitt makes a number of pertinent critiques of democracy, and that his theory of sovereignty is a powerful and subtle account of the exercise of political power. However, Schmitt’s theory in Der Bergriff is fundamentally incoherenton a number of counts. As Derrida notes at the start of the essay,Schmitt’s concept of the political is unobtainable, it is structurallyanalogous to the concept of redemption in Christianity: it can onlyever occur in the future when placed in the present utterance ofspeech. That he has created a ‘pure’ concept of the political is notonly immensely politically unsound, divorcing as it does the notion ofpolitics from the notion of the ‘good life’ that we find in politicalphilosophy since Aristotle, it is theoretically suspect. Schmitt basesthe entire of his political theory on an aestheticisation of violence,which is not born out by the phenomenological experience of violence,and misundersta nds the relationship between sovereignty and the social world. That his concept of politics is unobtainable is tacitly admitted bySchmitt (1996) in The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes:Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. This work is written at theheight of Nazi power, and yet Schmitt reverses his earlier claim about the relationship between the state of exception and the total state.This book could be seen as the epitaph to the argument between Schmittand Benjamin (before Benjamin fled Germany to die at the Spanishborder) on the notion of the state of exception. In the quote from Benjamin that begins this essay he uses a distinction between a realand a fake state of emergency: what he understands is that the use of aconstant state of emergency is where the possibility of a relation between law and that state collapses. Sadly, Schmitt realised this too late. II Was God a Bureaucrat? If there is today still no lack of those who do not know howindecent it is to believeor a sign of decadence, of a broken willto livewell, they will know it tomorrow. (Nietzsche: 1990:3) Schmitt developed most of his ideas in the shadow of the Weimarrepublic, a democracy struggling without an armed forced and without aclear government. In this period, many conservative thinkers lookedback to a time when man used to have God underwriting divine rule. Inthis Mythischer Traum (mystical dream), sovereignty was defined bytranscendence. Thus, it was a sphere separated off from the rest oflife: sovereignty was not a matter for discussion and popular will, itwas the law. Conservatives in Germany at the time thought many of theproblems of the Weimar Republic could be understood as a result of asecularisation that placed man at the centre of the world, and thusturned the idea of sovereignty as an exception to life into an idea ofpopular will: in Schmitt’s terms, transcendence is sacrificed to immanence. In this critique, thinkers like Schmitt borrow a lot fromNietzsche’s critique of the herd mentality of the bourgeois. They seekto rediscover the will, and like Nietzsche in the quote that startedthis section, await the day when people will know their will is beingsapped. One should not believe (a matter of opinion and internalchoice): rather, one should obey. It is the liberal idea of belief thatthey see as central to an age of neutralisations and depoliticisations(to use Schmitt’s terms). In this age, politics fails to have a spherefor itself but is degraded by other considerations like morality andeconomics that fail to understand the absolute nature of sovereigntyand so fail to offer a solution to the state. Thus, Schmitt can see inthe fractured nature of the Weimar Republic a concept of the politicalthat fails to offer people what they require (security and obedience)and threatens to fall back into the civil war of the state of nature. Primarily responsible for this is a liberal bourgeoisie that hasplaced government in the hands of a bureaucracy that depoliticises thesphere of government. The bourgeoisie, Schmitt (1985a: 15) claims, is  Ã¢â‚¬Å"a ‘discussing class’ [that,] wanting to evade the decision†¦[and] shift all political activity onto the plane of conversation.† Thus forSchmitt, the bourgeoisie avoid the importance of the decision: of theauthentic act of politics. They encroach on sovereignty and (ibid: 44)â€Å"aim with undeniable certainty as subjecting the state and politics toan individualistic, and thus private legal morality, partly to economiccategories – and thus robbing it of its specific meaning.† Thus,Bureaucracy tries to dilute the power of the state with individualismand thus creates a state unable to carry out its functions effectively.Schmitt’s dislike here of private legal morality is linked to hisdislike of the idea of the state allowing its cit izens any autonomy: itis here that Schmitt breaks with Hobbes, as we shall see later. ForSchmitt, bureaucracy functions in terms of fixed procedures and therule: such procedures will never encompass the central element ofsovereignty, and will sap man’s spirit by being inauthentic to the truepolitical concept (which is the friend: enemy distinction). In opposition to such apparent decadence, Schmitt postulateautochthonous decision. He argues that the bourgeoisie has sapped healthy German Lebensphilosophie, in an analogous way to the way thebureaucracy saps the notion of the political. He is in agreement withthinkers such as Spengler when they make a vitalist critique of thebourgeoisie. However, for Schmitt this critique also follows from hiswork on sovereignty. Already in Law and Judgment [1912] (see1914:14:ff.1) he noted that one cannot understand the legal order inrational terms alone, as a bureaucrat might understand the law in termsof legal precedent. Schmitt announces that the actual decision (whichmight change the precedent) is always an irreversible particularity.Here Schmitt draws attention to a fundamental distinction in his workthat is little remarked upon: that between constitutive andconstituting power. For Schmitt, power must always be understood interms of its possible constituting function: attempts that place powe rwithin the realm of established constituted power (e.g. a set legalorder) miss the fundamental aspect of law and of power. Thus, Schmittremarks on bureaucratic interpretations of law (1985a: 71) â€Å"everyrationalist interpretation falsifies the immediacy of life. III The Failure of German Democracy The increasing uncertainty and chaos in the Weimar republic led manyto fear a communist revolution. In a true Schmittean spirit (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), the climate of the Weimar republic brought together the conservative revolutionaries with the Nazis. Fearingcommunism, which for Schmitt would be the triumph of the non-politicalsphere (class), and detesting the bureaucracy of democracy, which theycompared to the notion of the content last man in Nietzsche, theywanted an active nihilism to give democracy its last push. They saw aclass of Hero’s emerging in opposition to the bourgeois after thedemise of the democratic state. This democratic state, as was clear toSchmitt from his analysis of the situation, cannot demand to name anenemy from the people and cannot control the enemies that emerge withinits own ranks. However, Schmitt split from many conservatives in how he thoughtthis revolution of will should be brought about. Many conservativesblamed modernism for the bureaucracy and hankered after a return to Godas the sovereign and the hierarchies of aristocracy. While Schmittagreed that modernism gave rise to humanitarian democracy as much astechnology, he did not think we could return to the past. He thoughtthat as politics had lost its lieu propre (proper place), and had beenintruded upon by the realm of economics, anything now had the potentialto be political. Thus, he saw in modernism something that wascompatible with the will. As he noted in Der Bergriff (1963:75): Economics is no longer eo ipso freedom; technology serves not only(the ends of) conflict, but instead just as much the production ofdangerous weapons and instruments: its progress does not further eoipso the humanitarian-moral perfection that was conceived of in the 18Cas progress. Within technology, he saw the possibility for a new state: based ondictatorship. Such a political entity would be able to decide on apublic enemy, and thus subsequently demand that the citizen either killor sacrifice his own life, which for Schmitt was the mark ofsovereignty. Thus, he claims the striking thing about the counterrevolutionaries of state of the 19C is that the moment the monarchycollapsed and they realised it could not be returned, they called fordictatorship. Schmitt claims (ibid: 78): The true significance of those counterrevolutionaries of state liesprecisely in the constituency with which they decide. They heighten themoment of decision to such an extent that the notion of legitimacy,their starting point, was finally dissolved. What such a dictatorship would allow is the return of a true sovereign. IV Political Theology All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state aresecularised theological concepts not only because of their historicaldevelopmentin which they were transferred from theology to the theoryof the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent God became theomnipotent lawgiverbut also because of their systematic structure(systematischen Struktur), the recognition of which is necessary for asociological consideration of these concepts. (Schmitt: 1963: 36) For Schmitt, the dictatorship of the future would allow again the lieupropre of sovereignty to be regained. This proper place, for Schmitt,is a theological place. This point is much disputed by Schmittscholars, see for example Meier (1995) and Mouffe (1999). In the quoteabove, it can be argued that Schmitt sees politics as theological:which would be to say his politics is a theological one whereby theomnipotent God is an omnipotent lawgiver. Or, it can also be arguedthat for Schmitt, theology itself is political: that theology is thebasis for politics and the two meet at the point of sovereignty. Thisessay will leave aside for the moment the secondary aspect of thisquote, which is that there is also a historical development that makesmodern theories of the state theological concepts: it is enough to notethat in either theory, the democratic notion of the people at thecentre of sovereignty misunderstand the nature of the sovereign. For Schmitt, the sovereign is he who creates law. However, in thiscreation, the sovereign has an interesting ontological characteristic.For (Schmitt: 1963:36) â€Å"although he stands outside the normally validlegal system, he nevertheless belongs to it, for it is he who mustdecide whether the constitution needs to be suspended in its entirety.†Thus, for Schmitt the sovereign is included in the legal order only atthe point of its own suspension. This can be understood as theexception. For instance, in a state of exception, the law is suspendedby an act of law itself: in that act, the exceptional nature of thedecision of sovereignty becomes clear, and one can see that law iscreated by an exceptional decision that can be recalled at any time inthe state of exception. This point is the original point that lies atthe foundation of law, and thus, is the foundation for Schmitt conceptof the political. For Schmitt, the political is preceded in a certainsense by the state. As Agamben (1995:26) explains: The exception does not subtract itself from the rule; rather, therule, suspending itself, gives rise to the exception and, maintainingitself in relation to the exception, first constitutes itself as a rule. . . The sovereign decision of the exception is the originaryjuridico-political structure (struttura) on the basis of which what isincluded in the juridical order and what is excluded from it acquiretheir meaning Is this anarchy? For if it was, then Schmitt would be arguing forreplacing the Weimar republic with a state no better than the state ofnature. This is not the case. For Schmitt (1963:12): What characterizes an exception is principally unlimited authority,which means the suspension of the entire existing order Because theexception is different from anarchy and chaos, order in the juristicsense still prevails, even if it is not of the ordinary kind. Schmitt is keen to maintain a constant relation between the state ofexception and the state of law. It is still the law that suspendsitself through the figure of the sovereign. For Schmitt, it is thisdecision that is at the heart of sovereignty. Rather than sovereigntybeing a matter for popular will, Schmitt understands that underlyingthe founding of any law is a moment where law must be suspended. Thismoment returns in the state of exception. This state of exceptionguarantees the power of the sovereign. It also reveals that sovereigntyis pure immediacy, rather than representation (which is the makingpresent of something which is absent). As Schmitt notes of thesovereign decision (1985b: 31): â€Å"the decision becomes instantlyindependent of argumentative substantiation and received autonomousvalue.† This argument, Schmitt claims, understands the true power oflaw in a way rationalist jurisprudence fails to do.   We see that Schmitt argument about the decision versus the rule is nota new concept in his thought in the 1920’s. The similarity betweenthese statements and those in Law and Judgement indicate this projecthad been there from the very start. In the Political Theology he givesa good definition of his project: (ibid: 22): â€Å"precisely a philosophyof concrete life must not withdraw from the exception and the extremecase, but must be interested in it to the highest degree.† Through thisproject Schmitt attempts to break out of the choice between nihilisticindividualism (the bureaucratic state) and community based politics(communism, as well as regimes based on tradition) by emphasising thesingularity of sovereignty. V Solutions: Sovereign Violence Schmitt now has a critique of the contemporary world, and a desiredworld he would like to go to. He finds his means in violence. Throughviolence Schmitt argues it is possible to break with rule based systemsof sovereignty. As he notes (1985b: 12): â€Å"the norm is destroyed by theexception.† Thus through the exceptional act the possibility of safetyand passive nihilism is destroyed, (ibid) â€Å"in the exception the powerof real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has becometorpid with repetition.† There is a strong theological undertone tosuch violence. The exception here functions much like the sacrifice inreligion. It is that which is outside the limits of the rule; thatwhich is offered up to something absolutely interior. Indeed, we couldgo so far as to say that what the miracle is for theology, the state ofexception is for Schmitt. Both are exemplary, singular: and yet bothdefine the basis for the rule: one by proof of God’s existence, theothe r by proof of the existence of sovereignty. When man is attuned to battle, he will once more realise the nature ofexistence and thus the nature of sovereignty. Schmitt here finds astrange bedfellow in the socialist Georges Sorel, who he quotesapprovingly on many occasions. In his essay on Sorel, he notes(Schmitt: 1933:18) â€Å"warlike and heroic conceptions that are bound upwith battle and struggle were taken seriously again†¦ as the trueimpulse of an intensive life.† Both Schmitt and Sorel agree on the needfor swift action and decision, both on the need for man to besubservient to a higher myth. There only point of disagreement is onwhich particular myth needs to be followed. Sorel, as a Marxist, usesthe myth of the proletarian. However, for Schmitt this is anon-political notion, allowing ideas of economics to infuse what shouldbe a pure sphere of sovereignty. The idea of the nation is that onlymyth that can keep such a purity alive. In a staggering display ofblindness to history Schmitt notes (1914:70): â€Å"t he stronger myth isnational. The national myth has until today always been victorious.† Onthe same subject he quotes Mussolini approvingly (ibid: 75-76) when heclaims â€Å"we have created a myth, this myth is a belief, a nobleenthusiasm: it does not need to be a reality.† We should note at this juncture several subtleties of Schmitt’sargument. While he reverses Clausewitz, and claims politics should beplaced in the cause of war, he does so only to the extent that waremerges as a possibility to return to an autonomous notion of thepolitical sphere. Schmitt does not advocate violence for the sake ofviolence, but rather, as a way to bring democracy to its limit point.At this limit point, man will realise the impermanence of his existence(the friend: enemy distinction at the heart of politics) and realisethat only a total state allows for this distinction to be transcendedthrough the absolute notion of sovereignty. Thus, war appears inSchmitt as a constant possibility: which is to say, as a way ofconstantly realising the nature of mans existence. In this, theAusnahmmezustand (state of exception) is not dissimilar from whatHeidegger (1962:312) calls a Grenzsituation, where â€Å"Dasein glimpsestranscendence and is thereby transformed from possible to realexistence.† Further, the relationship of violence to the state of exception shouldbe clarified. The state of exception is not, in and of itself, violent.Schmitt makes two distinct arguments here that are structurallysimilar. He argues that through war man can realise the basic conceptof the political and rise above the bourgeois mentality to become ahero. In this, man is exceptional and breaking through the rules ofpeace time. He also argues that it is in the state of exception that wefind the true nature of sovereignty and only a state that keeps thisabsolutely singular notion of sovereignty will be able to succeed. Itis important to bear in mind these arguments are separate and Schmittis not arguing for violence for itself. However, he does make several errors of analysis it is pertinent todemonstrate here. While Schmitt dislikes the bourgeoisie immensely, itis striking to note the degree to which his thesis on the power ofviolence as a singularity in which being is rediscovered is similar tothe argument of bourgeois artists (most pertinently the FuturistMarinetti, who embraced Italian Fascism) in favour of art for artssake. The problem in this argument is that there is nothing in violenceper se that makes it singular. As a series of ethnographies of war(Richard: 1996) have made clear: war follows cultural patterns and, farfrom being cleansing, can be banal and quite the opposite of aGrenzsituation. Schmitt’s eulogisation of law seems like the yearningsof a bourgeoisie after an authentic existence expressed in anexoticised Other. Despite the fact that the state of exception and the violence/wararguments are separate, their structural similarity should make usaware that for Schmitt, an aestheticisation of politics (politics as apure sphere being equivalent to art for arts sake, or in Schmitt’sconcept of the state, the state is simply that which is for itself)underlies his entire political theory. Moreover, this aestheticisationis a facile one that is at odds with the nature of war and the natureof violence. Following from this, it becomes clear that the exceptionis not a ‘pure’ example of politics: in as much as it is the basis forpolitical order, it is bound up in, for instance, economics. ForSchmitt to claim that it is ‘pure’ requires the assumption that thestate precedes politics, a claim, as we see in the next section,Schmitt cannot sustain. VI Hobbes and the Root of Liberalism The fundamental theological dogma of the evilness of the world andman leads, just as does the distinction of friend and enemy, to acategorization of men and makes impossible the undifferentiatedoptimism of a universal conception of man (Schmitt: 1963:65) Schmitt seeks to return to Thomas Hobbes. However, the Thomas Hobbes hesearches for is not the contractual Hobbes who allows citizens someelement of self-control. Rather, he returns to Hobbes as the theoristof the state of nature. It is here that Schmitt seeks to ground hisnotion of the political. Man is originally living in contingent, riskycircumstances, when any man around him could be his enemy: indeed, ishis enemy. Schmitt notes (ibid: 61) â€Å"all genuine political theoriespresuppose man to be evil, meaning dangerous and dynamic.† It is thisdangerous man that political theory must confront: a man without theillusions of democracy and self-improvement. He notes (ibid: 65) â€Å"forHobbes†¦ the pessimistic conception of man is the elementarypresupposition of a specific system of political thought.† Because man always requires an enemy, it is this conception of manthat can only be assuaged by sovereignty powerful enough the give apublic enemy: to command obedience in return for protection. Toresurrect such a man in Hobbes, it is necessary to remove Hobbes fromhis later work, which ‘taints’ him. In this task, Schmitt performs someinteresting manoeuvres. Normally, Hobbes is criticised today in afacile way by those who argue that there is no state of nature; thatman always presupposes culture, exchange and reciprocity. Hobbes makesclear in a footnote (1997:312) that the state of nature did not need tohave occurred: it is a model for politics. Most interpret this to meanit is a model for human nature. However, Schmitt interprets the stateof nature as the state of sovereignty in some senses. Sovereignty isalso an exception that sublimates the category of friend: enemy ontothe national stage. As Schmitt notes of international politics(1963:69): â€Å"in it, states exist among themselves in a condition ofcontinual danger, and their acting subjects are evil for precisely thesame reasons as animals are stirred by their drives.† What is faulty and interesting about Schmitt’s thesis is partly theextent to which it underlies all his other hypotheses. He argues thatpolitics presupposes the state. What this ignores is that there isalways already an encultured human, an encultured state. This is lessproblematic in Agamben’s formulation of Schmitt because he sees thisstate of sovereignty as reflecting the character of sovereignty itself:it does not require an original sovereignty, merely that the exceptionoccurs every time a sovereignty institutes itself. However, Schmittrequires that we begin from a point of enemy, and without this, thejustification for the total state begins to crumble. The violence of the original friend: enemy distinction is similar tothe violence with which he wants to bring down democracy and allow mento realise their need for dictatorship. Indeed, he makes (1963:58) theexplicit statement: â€Å"the word struggle (Kampf) like the word enemy, isto be understood in its existential primordiality (seinsmà ¤ssigeursprà ¼nglichkeit).† Thus, in the struggle for the nation in the time oftotal mobilisation, we find the true relationship of singularsovereignty and the enemy: friend distinction presents itself. AsSchmitt notes (ibid: 32) â€Å"to the enemy concept belongs the very presentpossibility of combat.† In embracing Hobbes in this fashion, he attempts to attack theproject of Liberalism founded on moderating Hobbes. He disagrees withthe possibility Hobbes holds out for that people can improve themselvesto a degree, and in doing so relinquishes the notion of the ‘goodlife.’ The life in the state is a life for itself: the state becomes aself-sufficient cause for all. To ground this Geist-like state, hetakes as his basis what he finds to be human in Hobbes. Namely (Hobbes:1997:99): â€Å"the passion to be reckoned upon, is fear.† This fear shoulddrive men to accept the singularity of the state. Hobbes claims (ibid:102) â€Å"every man to every man, for want of a common power to keep themall in awe, is an enemy.† For Schmitt, the common awe is the state: andthe reason the state can take this role is because it can designate thecommon enemy and in doing so, command the sacrifice of the personwithin its sphere. Here we see the theological leitmotif in the thought of Schmitt emerge again. The sovereign becomes like God: he who candemand the sacrifice of life. To reformulate this statement inSchmittean terms, the sovereign is he who can demarcate the boundary ofthe rule and the exclusion, and include you within an exclusion. Thisconcept is much more absolute than Hobbes, who holds out forself-improvement. Yet, for Schmitt this later Hobbes misses theabsolutely singular nature of human existence and of sovereignty. As we have already emphasised, Schmitt does not use Hobbes to get toa state of nature. Rather he uses Hobbes to establish the reality ofhumanity without illusions. Hobbes was writing in a time of civil war,which Schmitt liked to think was analogous to the Weimar republic. Insuch a period (Hobbes: 1997:26): â€Å"all legitimate and normativeillusions with which mean like to deceive themselves regardingpolitical realities in periods of untroubled society vanish.† He seesHobbes as trying (1963:52) to â€Å"instil in man again the mutual relationbetween protection and obedience.† This mutual relation finds itsanswer in Schmitt’s total state. VII The Total State Insofar as it is not derived from other criteria, the antithesis offriend and enemy corresponds to the relatively independent criteria ofother antitheses: good and evil in the moral sphere, beautiful and uglyin the aesthetic sphere, and so on. In any event, it is independent,not in the sense of a distinct new domain, but in that it can be basedneither be based on any one antithesis or any combination of otherantitheses, nor can be traced to these.(Schmitt: 1963:45) Schmitt places politics in its own sphere: a sphere that we cannotestablish, as Derrida astutely noted. We might argue that this positionof absolute submission before the state is functionally similar to theposition that a worshipper finds himself before God. We find this inthe Der Bergriff when Schmitt (ibid) states that â€Å"to the state as anessentially political entity belongs to the jus belli, i.e. the realposition of deciding in a concrete situation upon an enemy and theability to fight him with the power emanating for the entity.† Yet, this is not a new development in Schmitt’s thought. Theabsolutist nature of Schmitt’s thought can also be found in his earlywork. In 1914, in The Value of the State and the Significance of theIndividual, he argues (1914:101) that â€Å"no individual can have autonomywithin the state,† and that â€Å"the individual is merely a means to theessence, the state is what is most important.† Here, the state emergesin Schmitt’s work as something essential. As a sociologist, Schmitt wasaware of the temporal formation of the state. Yet he also considered itas a Platonic form that one aspires towards. With the emergence of the Nazi state, Schmitt joined the Nazi party andwrote legal tracts for them. However, increasingly isolated and underthreat as an unconventional thinker, he went into early retirement. TheNazi state did not emerge as the total state, as he tacitly admits inhis work on the Leviathan. Interestingly for a scholar who placed somuch emphasis on the real and the concrete evidence of life: hissolution was a Platonic state. Schmitt tries in vain to exclude allother categories from the political. What he finds is that when, as inthe Nazi regime, the constitutions exists alongside thenon-formalisable decision of the state of exception (the Fà ¼hrer’s ruleis the law, as Goebbels never tired of saying), the one requires ageneralised state of emergency. In such a state of emergency the linkthat Schmitt sees as essential, that which is between law and decision,is broken. This is not to say there is not order in the generalisablestate of emergency, far from it, but to claim that, with Agamben(1995), nomos and animos enter a state of undecidability that breaksthe Schmittean dream of such a state providing security. VIII Conclusion Behind the idea of the total state stands the correct realisationthat the contemporary state possesses new mechanisms of power and possibilities of enormous intensity.(Schmitt: 1963:186) This statement by Schmitt is correct. There are indeed great mechanismsof power and intensity in the idea of the total state. Furthermore,these are weapons of the modern age. Schmitt’s positive legacy is theelucidation of the grounds of sovereignty in a founding violence thatoccurs when law suspends itself in its own creation. Thisunderstanding, while it needs to be nuances, it still useful fordemocracy today. An understanding of the way in which supposedlydemocratic regimes today use and instrumentalise violence and a stateof exception is vital to combating the excesses of sovereignty. We could for example look to the way the Guantanamo bay inmates are placed in a category which is now beyond the friend: en Runaway Children: Causes and Strategies for Protection Runaway Children: Causes and Strategies for Protection Abstract Surprisingly there is less knowledge to our public of the significance of runaway children and their problems particularly in less developed Asian countries which include Pakistan. A general statistics collected by the police department which is not an exact estimate and this wrong data might lead to this problem being intense. Subsequently, with elapsing time this problem is becoming more serious due to deteriorating financial and political condition and coming into consideration of the government. Therefore the government of Punjab with help of UNICEF on 17 March 2003 at Lahore initiated an organization named (CPWB) Child Protection and Welfare Bureau. This is the most renowned organization operating presently in Pakistan dealing with the problems of runaway children quite efficiently with foreign helps on a large scale. It is aimed for the recovery, rescue, and rehabilitation of poor and destitute children involved in abuse, beggary, burglary, neglected and exploitation by adults. A number of institution of CP and WP are being operated in major cities of Pakistan which include 2 branches in Lahore, Gujranwala, Multan ad Faisalabad. Acknowledgements With the name of ALLAH ALMIGHTY we were able to finish our research paper. This research was conducted with the support of the organization named CHILD PROTECTION AND WELFARE BUREAU. We greatly thank the staff members of CP WB for the cooperation. Special thanks is placed to â€Å" Mr. Roa Khalil Ahmad† the â€Å"Assistant Director† for guiding us throughout our visit to the Bureau and arranging a productive interview with â€Å"Muhammad Amin Malik† the â€Å"Child Protection Officer† of the bureau. Responsibility of the research paper remains with the group members which include â€Å"Furqan Fasahat†, â€Å"Kanza Munir†, â€Å"Sana Rizwan†, â€Å"Maliha Zahid† and â€Å"Amna Mahmood†. Problems of runaway children The term â€Å"Runaway Children† is referred to those kids or youngsters who have been found missing from home for about a few days. This is a voluntary act by the children who face miserable financial and family issues which cause them to leave their homes and become a part of public places. Due to lack of knowledge and understanding the concept or idea of lost and missing children is less acknowledged among people of Pakistan, although it is a serious issue which is considerably growing with time. In Pakistan there is less documentation in the relevant department which lead to lack of essential information on this serious social issue. This has been under notice by UNICEF for a long period of time because this problem is quite serious and prevalent in Asian countries especially Pakistan being a less developed nation is a major victim of it. As the financial and political conditions of Pakistan are deteriorating with time this problem has come under notice by the Government of Pakistan from recent years and necessary steps have been taken at a large scale in order to deal with this problem. All the children are in growing process so it is natural that they are emotionally immature. In this developing age appropriate freedom for communication and proper space to express their emotions and views should be provided. When this lacks and no family support is provided a feeling of loneliness cause them to runaway. Runaway is regarded as a serious social issue. The children who leave their homes voluntarily face miserable domestic conditions which are at times intolerable. The experiences faced by these runaway children include neglect ion, physical and sexual abuse, parental disputes which gives a sense of insecurity, sibling rivalry, failure in studies or exams and the fear of parents. The first, foremost subtopics under consideration which are to be researched are the causes and circumstances which cause the young children to run away from their homes. This is assigned to Maliha Zahid. The second subtopic which needs to be discussed is the problems faced by children when they run away and this will be covered by M. Furqan Fasahat. The third domain which is important is the effects on the society and to be done by Amna Mahmood. Moreover, the NGOs are to be researched for this topic, and its role played in the dealing with this issue in Lahore and is worked upon by Sana Rizwan. Lastly, the criminal activities in which these children get involved will be discussed by Kanza Munir. These above stated aspects will be worked upon by us in this research project. This topic is quite vast and more areas can also be covered to enhance the research which includes that do the children desire to go back home, or prefer living in other places. Furthermore, the research can be further enhanced by looking into the struggle of parents in finding their missing children. But these aspects are not to be discussed or researched. Literature Review The topic being focused in our research is â€Å"Runaway Children†. The forces and circumstances responsible for runaway, practice by children, and their rescue and protection against exploitation. According to Rana Asif Habib, convener of initiator, there are around 10000 children in Pakistan who live in the streets. A research conducted revealed that among the runaway children 66% are victim of violence at home, education center and work place. Only in Karachi, 30000 of these children are deprived of homely comfort and are exposed to drug and sexual abuse. In order to protect, the need of legislation on child right is stressed. At least in Punjab there is a Bill of 2004 for â€Å"Destitute and Neglected Children Protection†, whereas other provinces are without any legislation. Therefore shelters and rehabilitation centers must be set up and run by state, health services and education facilities must be provided to the destitute children. On the recommendation of the UNCRC committee drafted a bill which is further waiting for legislation regarding child rights.() The Pakistan Penal Code section 89 has made corporal punishment lawful which rather spoils the confidence of child to exist as a respectable person. It plays rather a negative role and discourages children from going to schools. Humaira Butt, SPARC School Project coordinator, said that there must be other ways besides corporal punishment, which can be effective in making discipline. It is revealed that because of corporal punishment 50% of the children runaway from schools and increases the rate of runaway children. The most common reason why children run away is divorce and parental disputes. The second danger is the pressure of â€Å"predators† present everywhere in our community, and its difficult to recognize them as they look like the â€Å"guy next door†. The next is the abduction of children by their non custodial parents for using them for their own selfish interest. Fourthy many children are abducted and sold for body parts due to the underground business in practice on internet. Young girls are in danger of being kidnapped and sold for prostitution. Many children run away because of abuse and neglect by their foster parents. In developed countries like USA an â€Å"Amber Alert† system in developed. â€Å"Police can act on tips to locate a missing child† which is encouraging. The article deals with an encouraging factor that the director of the film Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle, and the producer, Christian Colson, set up a charity trust Jai Ho for helping poor children in Mumbai, India. The NCRC bill does not enjoy redressal power and same is with NCCWD. Problems in budget allocation in the health and education sector for children also exits. The committee is against the tendency of corporal punishment giving to school going children, because it lowers the literacy rate further in Pakistan. Another tragedy is the non registration of 70% of children at the time of birth, and the bonded labor practices in many industries and informal sectors, affecting the poorest and most vulnerable children prohibiting slavery and all form of forced labor. Though Employment of Children Act 1991 exists yet the awareness is non existent so no one report to the police and judiciary. The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) is deeply concerned that the minimum age of criminal responsibility continues to remain very low (7 years) therefore government should raise it to an internationally acceptable level. The number of children in prisons is high and number of juvenile courts, trained lawyers and p robation officers is insufficient. Faisal Kamal Pasha and Obaid Abrar Khan, Friday, September 11, 2009. The News It is told that Pirwadhai bus stand provide informations that mostly there runaway belongs to families facing object poverty, illiterate and orphans. These children get involved in drugs and some are addicts of sniffing an adhesive. The city police officer Rao Muhammad Iqbal said that these children are sent to the Child Protection and Welfare Bureau. The CP and WB have recovered 1251 children from March 2008 as reported. Edhi, the social worker of Edhi Foundation, arranged a bus from Karachi to Lahore to recruit children who were lost or had run away. Social worker says that Pakistan has a large population of runaway children or lost children, estimating their number at more than 20,000. Naveed Hasan Khan of Azad Foundation estimates that there are 13,000 to 15,000 in Karachi alone and the number in increasing. The UN, UNICEF estimates that there are 10,000 in Karachi. Due to poverty some parents are reluctant to receive their children from Edhi Homes, and also some children do not want to go back. The articles reviewed in this research give the factual detail regarding the certain barriers which contradict the final solution of the problems. Though the NGOs and social workers work with vigor to eradicate this evil yet the responsibility of the state is the first and foremost demand. Government institutions like Police and judiciary must play its adequate role required for addressing the cases with iron hands. Budget must be allocated to the centers of rehabilitation to let the victims get protection. Social values must be up held, especially at the domestic front. Parents and relatives must perform their duty towards small children. Instead of fighting on their own disputes the must be forced to safeguard the basic rights of their of springs. After all the parents are responsible for the upbringing of children, if they cannot take care of the tender hearts why at all they had the privilege to be called parents. Poverty must be lessened and education be made accessible to all i n order to stop children runaway. Research Questions Domain Questions: What are the causes and circumstances of running away? What are the problems faced by children who runaway? What role is played by the NGOs for supporting runaway children? What are the effects on the society of these runaway children? What kind of criminal activities take place? Subsidiary questions: What are the major reasons for running away from home and family Which is the most common age for running away Description of the abuses and strange experiences faced by children which caused them to runaway Where do the children go after running away? How do these children survive? How are they treated by the people around the outside world? What difficulties are faced by them? How do the bureau contact their parents? What type of background do these children have? How the NGO support them? How is the issue handled by the ngos? What is their behavior when they are rescued by the organization? What problems the organization face in handling such children? From where do these children come from? What are the social effects on the society of street children? Details of the main places in Lahore for runaway children. Description of the psyche of runaway children What are the measures and steps taken for these runaway children Who helps in promoting criminal activities? What incentives are provided to such children? Reasons for being involved in criminal activities? Which sector of the society is involved in exploiting these children? Research and methodology While the research was conducted, the first visit to the bureau was dated 26-03-2011 but it was not much productive. Only a meeting with the assistant director â€Å"Rao Khalil Ahmad† was possible in which the main topic of the research, goals and the purpose of visit was explained. In addition, a copy of interview question which were to be asked by the organization representative and the runaways, were handed over and the date and time of the interview was assigned by the assistant director. In exchange a handout of brief history, background and establishment of the bureau was given. The assigned date of the interview was 02-04-2011 and proved successful. The Child Protection Officer, â€Å"Muhammad Amin Malik† gave a well prepared and satisfactory interview which greatly helped in the research paper. The interview involved all the group members of which four were asking questions and one was busy in recording the movie of the interview. The answers of the interview qu estions were noted on the interview sheets provided by the instructor and were later signed and stamped by the CPO person. Second interview was with the runaway children in the bureau and while moving to the department of children the surroundings of the organization were keenly observed. Each child was asked similar questions, that is reason for running away, strange experiences if any, any involvement in criminal activities etc. Moreover, 20 questionnaires were prepared and filled in by the general public and the sample included students of LSE and family members. The interview with the CPO provided ample information relating to the organization, history and background of the problem plus the bureau. Different experiences quoted by affected children were separated related to each domain and helped in analyzing the topic well. The annual report of bureau provided exact facts, figures, dates and statistical information in detail of the organization. The answers of the filled questionnaires were decoded in Microsoft Excel and statistically analyzed in Stat graphics. Analysis of data and discussion Causes and reasons Children who run away from home are typically fueled by an overload of depression, anxiety, a sense of loneliness and alienation from their families and society. These kids often feel as if they have little support in times of trouble and no where to run when things get tough. Unfortunately for some children, parents realize too late theres a problem and the child ends up a runaway on the streets. Many children run away because their parents or legal guardian abuse and belittle or neglected them. (Anonymous, 2011). The precise number of runaway children in Lahore, or across the country is unknown. Estimates by organizations working with street children suggest there are at least 5,000 in the city at any one time, with the largest number based on Data Durbar or on the railway station. The charitable Eidhi foundation , which houses runaway children and attempts to unite them with parents estimates there are at least 10,000 such children in Karachi alone. By the end of 2003 there had be en 30% increase across the country in children leaving homes. They leave mostly due to domestic violence or acute social economic hardships (focus on runaway children, report, 2004 September, 8). The survey carried out on runaway children in which people where asked that would they leave there home if they have lack of resources and love, approximately 80% children disagreed on this, while 25% agree on this. According to the survey boys run away from home more than girls as boys are more aggressive and its difficult for them to control their anger . most of the children run in the age group between 10 to 16 and the main reason for running is parent dispute (appendix A and C).The first thing which comes in our mind is, who are runaway children and how can a child run from his home. What are the causes and reason due to which a child leaves his home? Home! the place which is known as heaven on earth. How this heaven becomes hell for that child? Are children forced to leave the home or they leave it by themselves. Children are innocent figure how they can be ready to face the difficulties of the evil world outside their home or the home they are leaving in is actually filled with evil people? Where these children go after running from their homes and what sort of difficulties they face. How does NGOs help them and rescue these sorts of children. In which sort of criminal activates these children usually get involved and what sort of impact these children have on society as these children are the future of our nation. To get answer of all these questions our group carried out a research on this topic as its the most important problem which are society is facing. The domain of my topic is causes and reasons due to which children leave their home. Nowadays( Renee, 2000) the reason for leaving home are far more tragic, things such as seriously eroded family condition where children feel neglected or unloved or they are abused. Children feel that if they dont run away they may end up dead. According to Dr Krishna Prasad, (2000) said all children are basically insecure, as they are emotionally immature. This immaturity is a part of the growing process. Each day they become more and more secure if the family is a close knit one with enough freedom for communication and emotional expression. Thus children runaway due to different reasons such as constant quarrels of parents ,causing insecurity and hatred in childs heart , if they feel unloved , fear of physical danger like father beating the child for wrong doing, fear that there would be withdrawal of emotional support for wrong doings.( 2000,runaway syndrome, psychology4all.com ) . Runaway children belong to different classes and have different reasons for running. Most of them belong to lower class. Children run from villages and come to cities as they think they can earn more money and live a better life. But after leaving their homes they get into wrong hands and get involved in criminal activ ities. Poverty is one of the main cause due to which 60% of the children leave their homes as there is no concept of family planning in our country(Pakistan) thats why the budget is more than the income ,so it is not possible for a poor person to fulfill his familys needs. As the person can not fulfill his childrens wants and needs so he forces them to earn many in any case. For this reason the children try to earn money from illegal ways such as they get involved into criminal activities, they start begging, stealing etc. many children dont want to work and so they end up leaving their homes because for them it is the last option. . In a recent interview conducted from a runaway child (Personal communication, March 26, 2011), named Ahmed Raza he told that he left his home due to the bad conditions of his home. He had 3 brothers and 4 sisters, so it was difficult for his father to support such a huge family thats why his father used to beat him and told him to do work and earn money but he didnt wanted to do that, so he left his home. Sometimes a child doesnt want to leave home but he is forced by his family members to do so as they don have enough money to fulfill their basic needs so they leave them to different NGOs. Or sell them to people so they can use the children for illegal things. I witnessed this thing myself when I visited child protection bureau (CPB). A man came along with her daughter to leave her to the government department, that girl was crying and saying that she didnt wanted to stay there his father said that he would come to meet her. The man took some money from the employee of bureau and left her there. When investigated from the people of bureau they said that the girl had ran from the place she used to work and that the man rescued her and came to drop her to the NGO so they can find her parents and send her back. . The organization was double-dealing or not I dont have any idea but I observed it. Many children run due to their father or mothe r mite be ill or having a swear disease which may also be caused due to poverty. Poverty is one thing which can ruin a blissful family just with in no time. In a recent interview conducted from an employee (Mohamed Amin Malik), working in a government department (CBI), told that a child, whom their team rescued, on asking the reason of leaving home he told that her father had cancer and he had three sisters and its very difficult for him to support them so he ran from home to get some work, so that he can help out this family. According the child protection officer (CPO) of CPB, the main reason due to which children runaway from home is due to neglect ion which is caused due to broken family or if the child is orphan and lives with his relatives . A child needs both mother and fathers love and care but if one isnt present they mite not feel secure and would feel unloved and if both are not present then their life becomes miserable. There differen5t cases in broken families, sometime father had done second marriage and doesnt allow the child t o meet his mother and the stepmother can be bad with the child so the child have only one way out that he should leave that hell. In recent interview (Personal communication, March 26, 2011) conducted from a runaway child who was not normal child. He told that he ran from his home because his father used to hit him and didnt allowed him to meet his mother, so he ran from home because he wanted to live with his mother but as he was not normal he was unable to find his mother. the second reason due to which children run from their home is when their parents are no longer in the world to take care of them and they live with there grandparents , aunts or other relatives . What may come relatives can not draw a comparison with parents. If a child lives with his aunt she can never gives her/him proper time , care and love as she gives to her own children due to this the child feel neglected.. Some relatives also take work from the children and also abuse them if they dont do work they abuse them due to these reasons the child end up leaving that place .A.Akbar (Personal communication, March 26, 2011) told that he had three brothers and one sister . His parents were dead and he used to leave with his aunt. His aunt didnt wanted him to live with her; she used to beat him so he left that place .When he was rescued by the CPB ,they informed his aunt that Akbar is with us but she refused to take him back . There are many different reasons due to which children leave their home .Sometimes its not big reason due to which children leave their homes but unfortunately it becomes. children are innocent and if parents only yell at them they get hurt and just leave their home and go to their relatives or friends place its the duty of relatives or friends to report their parents if their child comes to their place other then giving him more liability. Sometimes children run if their parent doesnt give them proper time as they give to their other siblings. In this way the child feel neglected and start hating his parents and run from his home although he isnt aware of the after affects of this. Children may run due to fight between siblings and parent doesnt stop them from doing this. They may take their fight as a normal thing but it can make a huge disaster. Many children run because they dont want to study and their parents beat them if they dont get good results. If a child fails he/she gets scared that his/her parents would beat him/her, so only one option is left for him/her to run away from his home. A person is recognized by the companionship he possesses. One of the reason due to which children run away from home is peer influence. If they belong to a bad company the chances of running increases. Nowadays children listen more to their friends then to their parents. Kasim (Personal communication, March 26, 2011) told that he came to data durbar with his friends to eat rice and the CPB team rescued him from there. He just came to enjoy with his friends from his home town (Jarawaral). When investigated from the bureau people they told that the boy had ran twice from his home and the main reason due to which he ran is that he doesnt want to do work so he ran from home with his friends There are many different cases due to which children run from their homes from which some of the reasons and causes have been explained after research. This problem is still not solved and increasing day by day. Measures should be taken to solve this problem other wise it would become havoc for our society. Though runaway has become a serious problem , we as adults are able to control it by understanding the hearts of children and giving them loving care .it is possible to change the way of thinking, behavior and emotional status of children while they are growing .(runaway children-an overview ,2008) Problems faced after running away The literal meaning of runaway children are the kids who voluntarily are found missing from their homes at least a few days without taking permission from their parents or caretaker usually due to intolerant domestic conditions or violence The topic of research paper is Run Away Children, and the domain on which the research is being conducted is problems faced by these run away children after running away from their homes. According to the Child Protection Officer, Muhammad Ameen Malik (Child Protection Center, Shalamar), there have been thirty two thousand two hundred and eighty four children rescued from 2005 till now. However according to the UNICEF report there are forty thousand still on streets who are either forced or have deliberately left their homes. The runaway ratio is increasing year by year and is around forty to fifty percent. Run away cases are mostly from the cities of Punjab and Sindh. These children are mostly from the lower middle class families who have low family income and are suffering from continuous family problems. The main reasons that force these children to run away can be listed as parental dispute, peer pressure, poverty, siblings rivalry and work pressure. In certain cases parental dispute exceeds to such an extent that the small minds of children get confused. They become victims of fear of the breakage in the parents relationship. The frequent clashes, disagreements and constant turmoil spoil the inner happiness of young hearts, because they demand peace, love and attention which do not exist. Their dream of a happy home shatters and they shun all negative and leave. Work and peer pressure are also a major reason of running away. Often boy at the age of seven or eight years are forced by their parents to work and earn money for their livelihood. Some of them are sent to workshops and others to road side inns, where the heartless cruel owners, the so called â€Å"ustad jee†, treat these innocent souls ruthlessly. Often being punished by these â€Å"masters†, and consistently rebuked. These small bread winners of the house get over matured before time, discuss things with their co-workers about the luxuries and freedom of others boys of their age enjoy. Often they see kids of their own age traveling in large cars and being pampered by their parents. As a result they revolt. They are left with no other alternative and in search of a better life they run away without realizing the true nature of the city life where wolfs are ready to maltreat them. One reason is an unhealthy criticism regarding education and other attributes. This can be classified as siblings rivalry. At times parents start comparing their own children with one another. Often the younger brother feels that he has no importance in the family because he faces discouragement at every spot. In order to prove his strength he decides to go to his own way to at least avoid a situation where he imagines himself as unwanted and disrespected, which gives rise to hatred and the ignorant figure. Poverty is the most imminent reason behind this misfortune. In poverty stricken homes the inhabitants loses human compassion and becomes distrustful for other members of the family unit. Complaint of lack of food, clothes, education and shelter snatches away love and cares of a demanding and eager child. Moreover the constant insult and thrashing contribute in creating a breach and results breaking up the links. Due to the reasons mentioned above children leave their homes. The question now arises that how do these children leave their cities? What mean of transport do they use to do this? And where do these children finally land up? According to the interviews conducted and the information collected from the management of the Child Protection Center these run away children acquired different modes of transport. Mostly they sit in trains from their local railway stations having no knowledge of their next destination. They are often drifted along on different directions, friendless and penniless. In an alien environment these fear stricken ignorant beings, in search of shelter, roam about from one place to another in quest of being recognized and acknowledged by the big citys complex activities. And from here their difficult entourage of life takes a new turn. After leaving homes there is danger awaiting at every step. The basic problem faced by these children is shelter, and then comes the problem of hunger. Both of these create havoc in life of these runaways. In our Islamic God fearing society the problem of hunger can be met by visiting certain center of free food but shelter is next to impossible. This shows these children the truth that they stand nowhere, no identification, no background and devoid of love and affection, they now have to make their own way into life yet threatened by dangers at every step. During day time they stay on roads but long nights are difficult to spend. They sleep on footpaths and outside the garden walls and later make friendship with other vagabonds, and tramps. The pangs of hunger force them to do all sorts of labor sometimes wiping the screen of cars and collecting pennies in return for buying food. Moral and social destructions are the consequences they face, finally one by one entangled by all bad ha bits. Another problem faced by the runaway children is they join the gang of villains who wickedly train these children as street beggars. At every crossing on traffic signals small children comes up asking for money which is not for their own use but to satisfy the whims of the criminal minded gangsters, thus entering into the hideous world of sinful people. Victimized by the wicked people all sorts of abuse they are exposed to and thus pay the price of leaving the security of their homes. Destruction then has no limits, sometimes these children are arrested by police and are sent to prison but police again cannot put a check on their activities. Thus they grow up as criminals and plague the society. Many of these children also get involved in drugs. Most of the beggars turns into hideous sinful criminal and are also found addicted to drugs. They are involved in selling drugs to students and youngsters. This deadly poison destroys the health and becomes the cause of many fatal cons equences. They not only spoil their own life but involve the future of our nation, the youth, by exposing them to drug addiction. The runaway children in the Child Protection Center helped in doing the research properly. The children interviewed were five in number of different ages, different backgrounds and different reason for running away. One of the children was 10 years old; he said that his step mother beats him so he ran away from home. When asked the question of what