民主就其古典的意義來說乃意指人民（demo)以自由與平等的 身分共同參與政治事務，是一個不分統治者與被治者的平等體制。但 是人民作為一個集體如何可能不由政治領導者的統治，而得以自我形 成一個治理的政治體制？如果民主需要一個政府，那麼就有了治人與 治於人的關係在；在民主制中，政治領導者的地位與角色跟在君主制 的中有何不同？對於這些問題，本文嘗試以觀念史的進路，探討西方 自1世紀塞尼嘉（Seneca, 4B.C-65 A.D )為古羅馬帝制所立的君主統 御的觀念以降，政治領導與治理的觀念如何跟民主自治（所謂人民主 權）的理想互動交錯，對立緊張，而有所演變。依此，本文論證下列 兩個主題：（1)在君主制中，君主實質性的政治領導統御在霍布斯 (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679)的「制度性主權」的理論中’轉向體 制性的治理權威’職司政治的判斷與仲裁。這種轉向到19世紀初葉 在龔斯當（Benjamin Constant, 1767-1830 )的政治思想中’發展出鑲 嵌於自由憲政中的中立性權力的理論；（2)在君主制論述的政治觀念 史脈絡中’反君主專制的共和主義式民主的理想不斷地與之相抗衡’ 本文所論的16世紀法國思想家La Boetie ( 1530-1596)與18世紀的 盧梭(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1778)所揭示的共和民主的人民 自治理念代表這種抗衡的思想趨向。

The term “democracy” in its original sense does mean the demos is endowed with free and equal status to participate in political affairs and thus can shape an autonomous collective power. How is it possible for the demos considered as “multitude of men” to from such a collective power without a leader who can coordinate them together? Supposed the demostries to build up a government, how is it possible for democratic apparatus of power to exercise without a distinction between the ruler and ruled? What is the status and quality of political leader (or ruler) in democratic government which is different from other regimes, especially from the monarchical government? With these questions, this article tries to examine the relationship between political leadership (and rulership) and democracy from an interpretation in the history of western political idea. It starts with Seneca’s justification of Roman Empire’s “principate”, and then explains two status of Medieval princes, that is the rulership and lordship, and ends by an illustration of Constant’s ideal of the “neutrality of power”. In order to interpret the turning point of the conception of political leadership and its tension with the idea of democracy, this article also deals with Machiavelli’s idea of political leadership and La Boetie’s principle of “anti-monarchy”, as well as Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s theory of sovereignty. There are two argumentative theses as follows: one is to interpret the transformation of the status and quality of political leadership (and rulership) from substantive domination to a seat of umpirage elaborated in Hobbes’ idea of “the sovereignty of institution” and further in Constant’s the ideal of the “neutrality of power”. The second is to illustrate the opposition of democratic ideal of people’s self-governing to the idea of political leadership that is represented by La Boetie and Rousseau.