The Downfall of Exceptionalism Illustrated by Syria, Bahrain, and Egypt

The basic premise of the thesis is challenging Schmitt’s statement “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (Schmitt 2005 pg.1). Schmitt’s presumption is that the sovereign can be found via the process of finding who makes the decision. This presumption is made on the basis of Schmitt’s belief of the inherent nature of the decision to the application of legal and political orders. This thesis hopes to unpack this claim in its entirety and examine the claim that the sovereign is the one who makes the exception. This is not to deny that sovereigns do make decisions but rather the thesis’ aim is to question and unpick the claim that the decision is the defining feature of sovereignty. Indeed, the thesis argues the decision is not the defining feature of sovereignty but can paradoxically lead to the undoing of state sovereignty when it is applied. The undoing of sovereignty in this case is not the downfall of the regime as some may suppose. Rather, the undoing as sovereignty can be seen as challenging Schmitt’s own terms i.e., unity and homogeneity crystallised by the decision. The undoing of sovereignty in this regard can be witnessed in the illustrations themselves. Whilst the regimes of Bahrain, Egypt, and Syria have not fallen we have witnessed significant challenges to their claims of sovereignty from below. These challenges expose the failure of sovereignty within these regimes illuminating the limitations of Schmittian decisionism.