Carl Schmitt論公投及其限制：關於直接民主對代議制之挑戰所做的警告

Carl Schmitt on Plebiscite and its Limits: A warning of the challenge of direct democracy to representative system Shang

如同今日的台灣，威瑪共和也曾採行公民投票的制度並且以憲法明文規定之。按照立憲者的原意，之所以要將直接民主的要素帶入威瑪憲法，其理由主要在於他們──一如臺灣的立憲者──對於議會的不信任，因此將直接民主要素視為用以補充代議機關之不足，甚或是視為制衡議會的機制之一。德國法學者 Carl Schmitt（施密特）不僅曾經深入地分析議會制的正當性，也同樣對威瑪憲法當中的直接民主要素做出了批評：直接民主形成了對於議會制度的挑戰，並間接造成威瑪共和的瓦解。在理論層次來看，施米特對於代議民主與直接民主的觀察雖然在戰後德國被繼受，但他的影響卻常常被低估。因此，本文將對威瑪的直接民主制度進行概略性的剖析。接著則再回到理論面，透過 Carl Schmitt 的書寫來探討代議民主與直接民主的競爭關係，最後則透過其觀點來反思直接民主的侷限與缺失。

As in Taiwan today, direct democratic institutions were also present during the Weimar Republic and enshrined in the Constitution. Similar to the founders of Taiwan’s constitution, the founders of the Weimar Constitution brought direct democratic elements into the Weimar Constitution mainly because they lacked confidence in the parliament and thought direct democratic elements could complement the representative system or act as a measure of checks and balances against the parliament. The German jurist Carl Schmitt has not only analyzed the legitimacy of parliamentarism, but has also provided a critique on direct democratic elements in the Weimar Constitution: the elements of direct democracy challengedparliamentarism and indirectly caused the collapse of the Weimar Republic. While Schmitt’s theoretical account of representative and direct democracy was widely adopted in the postwar period, his influence remains underestimated. Therefore, this article will first introduce the direct democratic elements in Weimar Germany and then move on to Schmitt’s analysis of the tension between representative and direct democracy. Lastly, based on Schmitt’s thought, this article will also reflect on the limitations and weaknesses of direct democracy.