Liberal Demmocracy and Political Theology. Remarks on Eric Voegelin´s Reception of Carl Schmitt.

The question of the significance of Carl Schmitt for Eric Voegelin´s political theory has frequently been raised by interpreters of Voegelin´s work (especially during the last decade - parallel with the renaissance and the growing importance of Schmitt´s work in the theoretical discourse in general). To many observers there seem to be significant parallels regarding some crucial concepts in the respective writings of the two thinkers. Some (German) scholars even tried to characterize Voegelin´s approach as being - at least in substantial parts - a "political theology" in the Schmittian sense of the term. There indeed are some conceptual similarities between Schmitt and Voegelin, and this is particularly the case regarding some of Voegelin´s early writings. But these similarities, firstly, concern Schmitt´s existential analysis of political reality and of the "state" and not, as most interpreters seem to presume, the issue of a critique of modernity and secularization, and not even primarily the relationship between politics and religion. And, secondly, besides these similarities there are, on the other hand, significant conceptual differencies, and only in the context of these differencies the significance of the parallels can be properly understood. The paper tries to show this in a first step by a very brief account of Voegelin´s and Schmitt´s respective conceptions of modern democracy. These conceptual differencies can be traced down to more fundamental differencies in the respective ideas of political theory in general. Already the early Voegelin himself explicitly points out these differencies, for instance in his reception of Carl Schmitt´s Verfassungslehre of 1928. Voegelin´s essay, written in 1931, is both, a positive evaluation of parts of Schmitts analytical work and a fundamental critique of his general approach. For Voegelin´s critique two points are decisive: 1. While Schmitt´s methodical approach towards political reality is substantially "collectivistic", Voegelin´s methodical approach, on the contrary, can be characterized as being "personalistic". And 2.: Voegelin critizises Schmitt´s theoretical position as an "immanent" position and juxtaposes it with his own "transcendent" position. Considering these decisive differencies, Voegelin´s paradigmatic figure of the "political thinker" turns out to be the exact opposite of a Schmittian "political theologian". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]