“The End of Law. Back on the Agenda.”This topic was the subject of an interesting discussion during the tenth edition of the civic forum “Conference on Democracy” in Varna. Listen to it in the marine podcast with Ivana Murdjeva, a PhD student at the Department of Philosophy, specializing in Social Philosophy, at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”:
Democracy, like a totalitarian state, despite the structural, conceptual, and semantic differences between them, must respond to several similar questions. One of these questions is about the end of law, argues Ivana Murdjeva.
Why do we seek similar contentious fields between democracy and totalitarian states, particularly fields related to law, legality, and justice? First and foremost, because the totalitarian state is not a lawless state, Murdjeva comments.
Totalitarianism aims to establish entirely new political institutions and to destroy all social, legal, and political traditions.
The disregard for established laws is presented as a superior legal order that may not necessarily comply with a lower legality. The higher legal order derives from the very primary source—in this case, the totalitarian state. The state creates the law, and it can revoke it.
Totalitarian justice claims to have discovered how to establish the law of justice on a global scale, which ordinary legal norms acknowledge they cannot achieve.
Why can it not be achieved? Because the inconsistency between justice and law cannot be overcome, as the criteria for “good” and “evil,” which are the foundations for the validity of legal norms, are extremely general when applied to countless unpredictable cases. Moreover, the balance between “good” and “evil” cannot be maintained. Thus, the statement that law does not always aim for justice, but rather for peace, sounds paradoxical, states the philosopher.
Totalitarian legality denies established jurisprudence. It expresses a claim to establish the supremacy of justice over the entire earth. Totalitarian legality claims it will apply the universal law of nature or the universal law of history. If they are applied correctly, it will lead to the creation of a new humanity that will be an infallible conduit of one law.
How is it possible to conceive universal justice?
If the principle of justice leads to the possibility of being equal, we must accept that this is feasible, just as justice is possible. Because we assume that equality can only result from human organization, as it is guided by the principle of justice. Each of us is equal only as a member of the community, by virtue of a mutual decision to guarantee equal rights. The community is based on the equality of the law, just as the personal sphere is based on difference and differentiation.
Common life is based on the assumption that we can create equality; we can build a common world, together with equals and only with our equals.
But…
Totalitarian states destroy the consensus of law (consensus iuris), thanks to which the existence of relationships in the larger society of independent states is possible.
The totalitarian state does not create its new and different consensus of law; it does not abolish one legislation to replace it with another. It claims that it can exist without a consensus of law because it promises universal justice on earth, promising to free law from its connection to human will, from its connection to a specific case, and promising to turn humanity itself into an embodiment of the law.
What is the difference?
Does democracy allow for the end of law? And if this is visible but unrecognized, how does it differ from the totalitarian state’s confidence in the end of the necessity for legal regulations?
The study of the state of legislation in democratic states in its dynamics is important precisely because of the necessary response to this question.
The problem of the development of democracy and the crisis of democratic values goes through understanding the influence of the legislative framework on social processes, in shaping citizens’ attitudes and creating a common direction for development, believes Ivana Murdjeva.
