32

This contribution aims to update what is unthought in the current opposition of two conceptions of democracy, labeled as liberal or illiberal, for whom the rule of law is either a mantra or a deterrent. First revisiting the formation of this latter notion, we account for its equivocality through the ambivalent relationship that modernity maintains with democracy. Then, examining controversies surrounding democracy at the heart of the 20th century, we show how Carl Schmitt could be seen as a radical theorist of democracy because he made the constituent will an unconditional power of decision. To escape this trap, we must envisage a normativity that is neither pre-given according to the natural law model nor brought by a higher authority according to the constitutionalist model, but immanent to democratic autonomy that finds within itself the demands that inspire its decisions.