大革命与现代政治的正当性:施米特与阿伦特的竞争性阐释

Modern Revolution and Legitimacy of Modern Politics: The Contested Arguments of Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt

施米特与阿伦特对于现代政治正当性问题有着不同的论述,他们共同面对的难题是民主革命奠基政权的正当性悖论。对此,施米特以“主权决断论”提出了一种人民民主专政的论证,而阿伦特则建构了一种“政治行动论”的论证。阿伦特的论述较之施米特的理论对现代性条件具有更为敏感与切实的把握,对当代民主理论的发展也具有更为丰富的启示。

Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt has different accounts of the problematics of modern political legitimacy. The common thesis that both Schmitt and Arendt deal with is the paradox in founding a constitutional democracy by modern revolution. While Schmitt endorses a model of ＂political decisionism＂, Arendt provides an alternative of ＂political action＂, which, as the author argues, is more sensitive to and feasible in the condition of modernity than Schmitt＇s model.