施米特（Carl Schmitt）曾對於Diktatur這個概念進行深入而獨特的討論，並且由法學的角度來重構這個充滿政治意涵的概念。現今中國大陸對於施米特Diktatur概念的翻譯，多半皆以「專政」一詞來翻譯之。這種翻譯用詞若是從思想脈絡上來看，乃是來自於馬克思主義所提出之「無產階級專政」這個概念。但如果深究施米特對於此概念的討論，則似乎帶有濃厚馬克思主義傾向的「專政」譯名，並無法清楚地表達施米特意義下Diktatur概念的完整意義以及政治取向。在施米特的理論中，Diktatur被分成兩種類型，其一是在合憲架構下的，目的在於維持憲法整體秩序之存在的「委任獨裁」；另一則是在憲法架構之外的「主權獨裁」，目的是在革命時期由制憲的團體掌握國家權力，制訂出憲法並使之生效。從思想史的沿革來看，施米特以為，前一種類型是源自於羅馬共和時期的獨裁官建制；另一種則是在法國大革命之後出現的現代形態，並且在馬克思主義理論脈絡中被發展成為重要的核心概念。本文將指出，如果就施米特在威瑪時期的思想整體來看，他對於兩種獨裁概念的區分，試圖有意識地和主權獨裁以及馬克思主義的獨裁理解保持距離。藉此，他一方面試圖從法學上解釋總統在緊急狀態出現時，所具有的超越法律常態的權限之必要性；另一方面，則是針對當時共黨的革命性政治立場提出警告，並說明基於此革命立場所產生出來的議會提案，不應在威瑪憲法還具有效力的情況下付諸實施，否則便等同於再次回到革命狀態。據此，施米特才將獨裁概念上溯到羅馬的古典傳統。

Carl Schmitt provides us with a profound and distinct exposition of the concept of the diktatur (dictator), reconstructing this political controversial concept from a jurisprudential perspective. However, in Chinese academic circles, diktatur has been generally translated as zhuanzheng. This translation derives from the Marxist concept of wuchan jieji zhuanzheng (or ”dictatorship of the proletariat”). However, a close examination of Schmitt's work reveals that the Chinese translation zhuanzheng does not accurately capture his use of the concept or its political orientation. In Schmitt's theory, the concept of dictatorship is differentiated into two types. One is the ”commissioners' dictatorship,” which is an institution within the constitutional framework and functions to maintain the entire constitutional order; the other is ”sovereign dictatorship,” which is, on the contrary, apart from the constitution, and refers to the state powers that groups involved in the designing of a new constitution or revolutionary parties hold during the revolutionary period before a new constitution is established. Looking at the history of political thought, Schmitt argues that the former emerged from the institution of the dictator in ancient Rome, while the later emerged from the French Revolution and subsequently became an important concept in Marxist theory. This article highlights Schmitt's distinction between the two concepts of dictatorship and his analytical separation of sovereign dictatorship and the concept of dictatorship under Marxism. Although Schmitt affirms the necessity of extraordinary presidential powers to be exercised in an emergency, he also warns of the danger of the communist revolutionary political standing and argued that the revolutionary proposals of the Weimar communists in parliament should be rejected as long as the Weimar Constitution remained in effect, since to allow them would negate any difference with the revolutionary period. On this basis, Schmitt refers the concept of dictatorship back to the classic Roman tradition.