本文試圖以施米特的「代表」概念為起點，來分析卡爾•施米特 如何想像政治代表與民主之間的衝突。此外，並欲釐清艾瑞克' 沃格 林如何對於施米特的代表圖像做出回應，以重新思考現代國家中政治 代表的正當性問題。
施米特以「代表」和「同一性」兩原則的對立來批判議會制，並 從其對政治統一體的想像，建構出一套統治者直接訴諸政治集體而取 得正當性的代表模式。對此，沃格林批評施米特的民主進路，並未徹 底去除「代表」原則的要素，而只是以民主的術語來重構君主作為 「政治代表」的理論。本文將進一步分析沃格林的「政治宗教」這個 概念，以說明沃格林如何試圖挑戰施米特將政治代表建構在集體性 「人民」概念之上的政治一神學類比。

This article analyzes Carl Schmitt’s concepts of representation and democracy and Eric Voegelin’s critiques. The aim is to rethink the legitimacy of political representation in the modern state. Schmitt criticizes parliamentarism from two contrary principles: representation and identity. And he erects his representative mode which authorities acquiring their legitimacy through directly resort to the political collective. In contrast, Voegelin disagrees with Schmitt’s idea and demonstrates that the latter did not entirely remove the element of representation. Moreover, Voegelin argues against Schmitt who rebuilds the principle of monarchy with the democratic terminology as the theory of political representation. This essay, furthermore, analyzes Voegelin’s concept of “political religion,” demonstrating how Voegelin challenged Schmitt’s political-theological analogy that political representation is established on the collective concept of “people” bases.