Carl Schmitt lived during the political and economic turmoil of Germany, witnessing firsthand how crises threatened the very foundation of his nation and society. He observed that the State of exception, in full force, disrupts the ordinary functioning of societal systems and paralyzes the natural order of political and social affairs—an order maintained through legal norms and the rule of law. However, Schmitt argued that the first effect of the exception is the suspension of the legal order and the incapacitation of the law itself. In such circumstances, he believed that something beyond the law is necessary to preserve the foundations of society. He entrusted this critical responsibility to the Sovereign, empowering them with the instrument of decision. In times of crisis, the Sovereign, according to Schmitt, must suspend the ineffective legal order and, through a decisive political act, restore or create a State of normalcy. As such, the Sovereign assumes a position that closely resembles dictatorship: a dictatorship that either restores the normal order and neutralizes the exception, or constructs a new political and social order altogether. This study aims to understand Schmitt’s theory of dictatorship through the lens of the Sovereign and the State of exception, demonstrating that the figure of the Sovereign-dictator does not inevitably lead to despotism or arbitrary decisionism, contrary to common claims.