According to Schmitt 1, the juristic form is not trascendental, neither aesthetic nor technical. Informal decision within the context of urbanization is a concrete decision that emanates from a emerging authority of city dwelers. This citizens authority is claiming its validity from the right to housing and the potency of transforming bare land into individual dwellings autonomously. The state was not able to provide it. The informal is valid and legitimate. Moreover, its practice is political because it creates concrete legal order, transforming autonomy into sovereignty.

This self-created informal space of autority faces State power. The form of informal is not the negation of formal order, it is its complement. Both are trying to grasp the reality of societal life. Even in some political driven opportunities, autonomous self-organized informal citizens create the conditions of posibility to direct established formal legislative powers towards the interest of the former. The continues appaereance or emergence of these legislative events, and the existing potencial of a network of self-organized citizens across Peruvian society, develops the constituent power of informal dwellers.

The sovereign power of the state is influenced by this informal practice. The complete command of the head of the state or the tecnocracy that adscribes to formal legal order, is challenged permanently once this democracy allows the informal mode to perform its potency. As informal subsumes into formal power of Peruvian state, this ocasional merging reiforces the concrete authority of this state rejecting the abstract valid order of law.

Reference

  1. Carl Schmitt. 2005. Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. Translated by George Schwab. University of Chicago Press. ↩