本文從古典修辭觀反省當代民主政治。首先指出修辭在古典民主中 的重要性與必要性。其次指出當代民主因爲主客觀環境的變化，使得當 代民主在政治溝通上，與古典民主運用修辭、訴諸群眾的互動模式有類 似之處，因此可以引爲借鏡。本文主要論點認爲，古典修辭觀在「說服」 與「判斷」兩項特質上，可以與當代盛行的審議民主理論作比較參照。 由於當代審議民主過於強調理性言說、證成、審議等特質，因而無法貼 近解釋現實政治，形成實踐與理論上的差距。當視角轉換到古典修辭觀 時，反而更能理解當代民主的面貌，進而提供規範性的修正意見。總的 來說，本文認爲基於當代民主政治的發展趨勢，政治人物言說越顯重要， 理論上的漠視，並不會使煽動、蠱惑、顛倒是非的政治人物消失。理論 或規範層面上，必須正視這個現象。而本文認爲古典修辭觀對於政治人 物言說，提供極佳的規範概念，也更貼近政治實踐，易於借鏡，値得成 爲民主政體中公民教育的重要內涵。

This paper reflects on contemporary democracy from the perspective of classical rhetoric. I argue that persuasion and judgment, the two main elements of rhetoric, are better concepts for understanding and critiquing actual democratic processes than rational speech and justification in deliberative democratic theory. Rational speech and justification claims a higher degree of abstraction, making it impractical in the real world and producing a gap between theory and practice. On the other hand, rhetoric provides a more feasible normative approach to scrutinizing public speeches, and provided a more attractive model of proper persuasion. The process of “persuasion” is distinctive from that of “justification.” Persuasion assumes greater attention to the specific audience and use of easily understood language. I contend that it also implies a form of “equality in speech” that is concerned with the specificity of the audience. In contrast, deliberative democrats presumes a universal and abstract audience, ignoring differences between audiences. This assumption of sameness sacrifices the power of persuasion. Furthermore, classical rhetoric emphasizes the importance of judgment; in particular, “arguing on both sides” allows the audience to better understand the issues and make decisions that are more robust. In conclusion, the paper shows that ignorance of theory means that political demagogues disappear. Classical rhetoric provides a normative and practical guide to the realities of democracy, and should be made a part of civic education in a democratic regime.