Abstract:

In this article Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt’s opponent thoughts about constituent power are discussed. The aim of discussion is to reconsider the concept of constituent power in an enriched conceptual framework. Thereby the article suggests moving beyond present infertile politic and academic discussion on constitution making problem in Turkey. way for a chaos of ‘permanent revolution’. This fear sharpens Arendt’s opposition of democracy. Because of that Arendt does not make a distinction between the concepts of sovereignty and popular sovereignty separates the concept of constituent power from popular sovereignty. According to her, ‘founding act’ bases on making separation between authority and power. At this juncture she faces Rome. Because Romans had achieved to separate the two: Potestas in populo, auctoritas in Senato. Then Arendt indicates American Revolution which the unique successful experience of founding acts among modern revolutions. But American Revolution is an exception. In America was such that only Americans had the conditions of pure political act. It was Carl Schmitt who carries the Sieyèsian conceptualization of constituent power and constituted power to the twentieth century. Both in Constitutional Theory and in The Concept of The Political which is preparatory of the former one he claimed the thoughts which are the sources of Arendt’s criticism. The concepts of ‘identity’, ‘homogeneity’ and sovereignty are used by Carl Schmitt for grounding the assumptions relating the founding of political unity. Carl Schmitt defines constitution as a decision on type and form of a political unity. So his democratic concept of constituent power grounded on an immanent conceptualization of popular sovereignty. As a Rousseauist Schmitt grounds the relation between constituent power and popular sovereignty and indicates the continuity of the people’s constituent act. But he also is a severe opponent of democracy. This opposition comes to light in his theory of representation. As a Rousseauist Schmitt claims that representation and democracy cannot be reconciled and the political is conditioned with representation. The radical interpretation of Carl Schmitt’s democratic theory of constituent power, by way of the relation between constituent power and popular sovereignty, suggests thinking of democracy with constituent power. Thus constitutional-political conflicts can be comprehended beyond procedural matters

Keywords: