Drawing on the work of Walter Benjamin, this essay argues—largely against Carl Schmitt—that political theology as a critical analytic should examine the ‘afterlife’ of theological tropes with respect to the sense of time and history that they compel. Benjamin’s The Origin of German Tragic Drama argues that sovereignty as a political concept gains prominence as a response in the wake of the erosion of the concept of salvation history in the Baroque. The consequence of this rise of sovereignty as a (...) political key concept is a philosophy of history based on the permanently impending catastrophic end of the world. This continuously urgent situation is not only one that leaves little room for political critique and action, but also a perplexing one in its perpetuation, since the end of the world never actually arrives. To answer why political urgency can be perpetuated seemingly infinitely and why sovereigns can fail without eroding the ongoing desire for sovereignty, Benjamin’s work suggests that we must broaden our view of political theology to consider the survival of further theological concepts to include original sin as a master trope of philosophical anthropology. (shrink)

The ability to dominate or exercise will in social encounters is often assumed in social theory to define power, but there is another form of power that is often confused with it and rarely analyzed as distinct: logistics or the ability to mobilize the natural world for political effect. I develop this claim through a case study of seventeenthcentury France, where the power of impersonal rule, exercised through logistics, was fundamental to state formation. Logistical activity circumvented patrimonial networks, disempowering the (...) nobility and supporting a new regime of impersonal rule: the modern, territorial state. (shrink)

Abstract. Revelations in the United States of secret legal opinions by the Department of Justice, dramatically altering the conventional interpretations of laws governing torture, interrogation, and surveillance, have made the issue of "secret law" newly prominent. The dangers of secret law from the perspective of democratic accountability are clear, and need no elaboration. But distaste for secret law goes beyond questions of democracy. Since Plato, and continuing through such non-democratic thinkers as Bodin and Hobbes, secret law has been seen as (...) a mark of tyranny, inconsistent with the notion of law itself. This raises both theoretical and practical questions. The theoretical questions involve the consistency of secret law with positivist legal theory. In principle, while a legal system as a whole could not be secret, publicity need not be part of the validity criteria for particular laws. The practical questions arise from the fact that secret laws, and secret governmental operations, are a common and often well-accepted aspect of governmental power. This paper argues that the flaw of secret law goes beyond accountability and beyond efficiency to the role that law plays, and can only play, in situating subjects' understanding of themselves in relation to the state. Secret law, as such, is inconsistent with this fundamental claim of the law to orient us in moral and political space, and undermines the claim to legitimacy of the state's rulers. (shrink)

There is a tension in the notion of popular sovereignty, and the notion of democracy associated with it, that is both older than our terms for these notions themselves and more fundamental than the apparently consensual way we tend to use them today. After a review of the competing conceptions of 'the people' that underlie two very different understandings of democracy, this article will defend what might be called a 'neo-Jacobin' commitment to popular sovereignty, understood as the formulation and imposition (...) of a shared political will. A people's egalitarian capacity to concentrate both its collective intelligence and force, from this perspective, takes priority over concerns about how best to represent the full variety of positions and interests that differentiate and divide a community. (shrink)

The text analyzes the discourse on sovereignty in the Czech politics in the light of current processes of the transformation of sovereignty caused by the globalization and Europeanization. The author discusses the dispute between liberal-conservative critics of the European integration and cosmopolitan critics of the sovereign statehood and points to the limits of both positions. It is argued that the conservatives who warn against the loss of sovereignty in the ongoing process of Europeanization and who call for the protection of (...) the Czech statehood cling to an obsolete and invalid concept of sovereignty that is no longer adequate to changing social and geopolitical conditions. Similarly, it is pointed out that the defenders of cosmopolitan Europe who take sovereignty to be an old and useless category hindering the process of democratization are unable to off er an alternative capable of responding to growing concerns regarding the democratic defi cit and the loss of political autonomy. The text tries to show that both positions misconstrue the challenges of globalization and Europeanization for the state and democracy. (shrink)