政治代表性的觀念是代議民主制的基本原則，從18世紀末葉的民主革命以至於今，這個觀念引發諸多的爭議，其中最明顯的議題即是，代表即意涵代理、代行或授權的程序，也意涵體現不可見之事物，讓它們得以顯現。據此而論，代表是否能全然對應與體現被代表者所要表現的事物？本文依此問題以及相關的議題，解釋施密特、鄂蘭與勒弗的代表性觀念，這個觀念跟民主的論述與理論密切相關。本文以他（她）們各自關切的政治現實與議題為切入點，闡釋代表性觀念與民主的關聯。這三位政治思想家各有其論證民主與政治代表性的宗旨，在論證上亦各有其強弱之處。本文經由闡釋他（她）們的民主理論，試著論證在現代民主體制中，我們無法如鄂蘭所論，設想不依傍政治代表性的觀念及其制度設置，而能強化公民個人及其結社的實踐力。同樣地，我們也無法如施密特所冀望的，藉由民族統一的代表性為樞紐，塑造國家與人民（或民主）主權的政治統一性，也無法如他所設想的，主權者的政治決斷力體現這種統一性的力量。介於民主的這兩極思維，勒弗闡釋民主權力的虛位空場，承認民主之爭論與衝突的不可避免性，為防止此權力陷入無政府的權力真空，法律的規劃及人權的保障乃是民主不可缺少的條件。依此脈絡，勒弗論辯，民主的代表性觀念（如人民與民族）皆是象徵性的意向，跟它們實質的體現（或跟它們所代表的）永遠有差距與張力。因此民主無法建立任何實質的、確定的統一體。

This article aims to examine the problem of political representation through the work of Schmitt, Arendt and Lefort. It first illustrates Schmitt's democratic theory, in which he tries to fashion political unity between the collective will of the people and the nation as a representative entity, by way of the sovereign's political decision on the exception. This theory of representation raises the criticism of Arendt and Lefort. For Arendt, Schmittian political representation is prone to sovereign dictatorship, instead of which Arendt tries to empower civic participation in public affairs without the mediation of a representative system. Against these two poles of the idea of political representation, Lefort argues that a democratic regime is characterized by the empty space of power and its symbolical representation. Owing to this characteristic, a democratic regime can neither establish a political unity between state and people as Schmitt elaborates, nor function without the mediation of political representation as Arendt proclaims. Following from this, Lefort affirms that we need to recognize the tension between the symbolic guiding ideas or principles and their concrete realization in a democratic regime.