Parliamentary democracy and leadership: A discussion based on Max Weber and Carl Schmitt

Political modernity has started with the revolutions that instituted the supremacy of parliaments over monarchs. Yet, the history of parliament is nothing but a history of decline until today. Comparing to chosen monarch - president and prime minister - , parliament has lost its capacity to make law and represent the people. Study discusses Max Weber and Carl Schmitt's criticism of parliamentary system with regard to democracy. On the triangle of parliament, democracy and leadership, the inconsistencies in Weber's arguments are nearly identical with the contradictions and difficulties of liberal parliamentary system. While Weber prioritizes leadership against parliament, he totally underscores the democratic nature of parliament which is based on the representation of people. On the other hand, Schmitt completely negates parliament by identifying democracy with leadership. While rejecting Weber and Schmitt's solutions which prioritize leadership by negating either democracy or parliament, this thesis strongly suggests the necessity in the promotion of public nature of parliament on the triangle of parliament, democracy and leadership.