Abstract

The following remarks deal only with one aspect of Kennedy's article: the attempt to demonstrate Schmitt's imprint on Habermas' work. Here Kennedy has to bear the burden of proof because of the gap between Schmitt, the harbinger of politics as a sphere of existential decision, and Habermas, the theoretician of apolitical rationality. Before dealing with two questions raised by Kennedy — Schmitt's and Habermas’ conception of democracy; and the distinction between legality and legitimacy, it is advisable to briefly review Schmitt's conceptual apparatus. Kennedy begins by ascribing to Schmitt the view that liberal democracy is a deceptive compromise which does not resolve “the material claims to equality.”