Carl Schmitt begins Dictatorship, his classic work of 1921, by distinguishing the political institution of the title from Bonapartism and Caesarism. However, Schmitt himself eventually conflates dictatorship with Caesarism, somewhat cryptically by the end of the book, more directly in his next book, and unequivocally over the course of his Weimar career. This chapter explicates Schmitt's theory of dictatorship, especially his distinction between “commissarial” and “sovereign” dictatorship, and his diagnosis of the abuse or desuetude of the concept in the twentieth century; examines the extent to which, and attempts to explain the reasons why, Schmitt's doctrine of dictatorship eventually collapses into Caesarism; and evaluates the validity of Schmitt's charge that liberal constitutionalism is incapable of dealing with the kind of political circumstances that call for dictatorship.

dictatorship between marxism and liberalism

Schmitt’s argument in Dictatorship hinges on the theoretical-historical distinction between the traditional concept of “commissarial” dictatorship and the modern one of “sovereign” dictatorship. The two are separated by a conceptual distinction, on the one hand, but, on the other, joined by the historical transformation of one into the other in modernity. Commissarial dictatorship, as practiced in the Roman Republic and championed by Machiavelli, was limited in its exercise during emergency circumstances by allotted time, specified task, and the fact that the dictator had to restore the previously standing political-legal order that had authorized the dictatorship.