POLITICS, CONSTITUTION AND NOMOS

THE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES OF SCHMITT AND ARENDT

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze and, subsequently, to compare the concepts of the constitutional philosophies of Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt. Despite the ideological differences that separate the two authors, the hypothesis of this article is that certain theoretical affinities allow an explanation of the constitutional phenomenon in a political perspective. This perspective is extremely relevant to the current state of the debate concerning the relation between politics and constitution - dominated by a vision that separates and quietens the first. In this sense, in order to set out the discussion, a brief overview is made of their theories and biographies, with the intent to contextualize them in a historical, political and philosophical manner. Furthermore, the concepts of "unity", "representation", "identity" and "political", from the work of Schmitt, are compared to those of "power", "freedom", "action" and "common world", from Arendt's theoretical framework. This comparison’s purpose is to demonstrate that the authors base their political and constitutional theories in a similar vision of the political phenomenon. Finally, the paper reaches the concept of Nomos, whose meaning allows us to understand the relation between politics and the constitution in the work of both authors. The aforementioned concept allows the analysis of the political and constitutional order through a dynamic perspective, inserting politics within the constitutional structure and displacing the first to the status of a conditio sine qua non for the foundation and existence of the second.