Should we strive to resolve our political differences, or is political disagreement a good thing? How might Carl Schmitt help us respond to this question?
According to love (23), a conflict situation is often characterized by two or more different parties having different motives and ideas in confronting a particular problem which has no obvious solutions that are correct to accommodate everyone. Therefore, within any situation there are always two separate sources of conflict that are overlapping with each other for example ideologies and interests. Conflict of interest can therefore be defined as that difference that exists between two or more parties over preferences for allocation of a resource that is mutually desired. Interests that are differing often account for a portion of conflict that often results in most of the situations such as parties clashing over differences in values and ideologies.
Mill (63) points out that, democratic electorates are often composed of individuals who are interdependent and politically interconnected decision makers. These individuals often do not go into democratic politics alone, but always depend on one another for information and guidance politically thus making political persuasion and communication to lie at the core of democratic politics and citizenship. In addition to that, the strength of democratic politics depends on the citizens’ capacity to disagree or reject or as well as accept the view points of others. The citizens and electorates capacity to tolerate political disagreement comprise a central issue especially in democratic politics .The existing models of open, free and democratic society can be described as one in which issues that are political are full explored and political debates fully aired. In such kind of societies, citizens are often open to persuasion but also sympathetic to the continued disagreements, social boundaries on political view points that are fluid and shifting and to individuals who encounter the full spectrum of issue positions and political view points.
Importance of Disagreement in Democratic politics
Indeed it’s okay to put across that a democracy without any conflict and disagreement cannot be termed as democracy. Therefore, institutions that are democratic are not supposed to eliminate disagreement and conflict but manage them in a productive manner. The American take pride justifiably in their world’s longest surviving constitution that is democratic, however through a candid assessment of their political history has recognized a series of democratic failures that are related to the deeply embedded patterns of disagreement and conflicts. This fact can be supported by the existence of the American bloodiest civil war which was motivated by the internally disintegrated consequences that were generated as a result conflict and disagreements that were organized on a sectional basis.
Various bodies of scholarship have considered citizens’ capacity for responding to disagreements that are political in nature in a way that coincides with democratic politics requirements. Several literatures have focused on political tolerance where individual circumstances often give rise to tolerance, its incidence in the citizens’ population and the meaning of the word tolerance in political terms. Tolerance often finds its meaning in political disagreement context where by it is only relevant with respect to particular groups and reasons that an individual sees to be truly objectionable. Therefore, political tolerance among the Democrats that are liberal can be understood in terms of their willingness to bear some demonstrations such as anti-abortion campaigns in front of the abortion clinics same as the Republicans who are conservatives are able to tolerate abortion rights a form of political tolerance. A body of scholarship has also focused on the political deliberation and its ability to improve the quality of democratic politics (Pattie and Johnson 273).Deliberation often vary in meaning across theories and it usually takes place between small groups. It entails the open-minded and democratic exchange of views and positions thus enhancing the production of higher political engagement levels, compromise and tolerance among view points that are competing. As a matter of fact, compromise, tolerance and engagement are often embedded on personal experiences of political diversity. Thus the benefits of deliberation are based on disagreement which basically means the interaction among citizens who hold diverse perspectives and viewpoints regarding politics. It is therefore justifiable to say that without disagreement both tolerance and deliberation will loose their meaning.
However the presence of disagreement and political heterogeneity within a communication networks might provide no guarantee of the existence of deliberation or tolerance. For example political disagreement might fail to be communicated effectively whereby individuals may decide to ignore, dismiss or simply avoid politically disagreeable viewpoints and views hence rendering communication to be ineffective thereby making individual to analytically differentiate between persuasiveness and effectiveness of communication. Communication only become effective when two individuals get clearly the content of the message being discussed by the other party and the same message can be persuasive when one of the parties changes his or her preference or opinion as a consequence.
How Carl Schmitt helps in responding to the questions above
According to Schmitt (25-26), the definition of political can be obtained only by discovering and defining particular political kinds. In contrast to human thoughts and action that are relatively independent endeavors, the political must rest on an ultimate distinction to which actions with particular political meaning can be traced. He also writes that, the specific political distinctions in which the political actions and motives can be decreased, is that between an enemy and a friend. The distinction that exists between an enemy and a friend often denotes the highest degree of strength of a separation or union (Schmitt 26). In addition to that, he confirms that the political enemy should not be viewed as morally evil or ugly aesthetically nor should he be viewed as an economic competitor thus making it…………………………CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR A FULLY RESEARCHED PAPER ON THIS TOPIC AND OTHER RELATED TOPICS FROM A PROFESSIONAL WRITER AT capitalessaywriting.com…………………………….