What is the relation between representing an authority in one way or another (say, as a parliamentary democracy, or a police state), and judging its legitimacy? The view implicit in most normative theories of legitimacy is that representing an authority is a matter of getting the facts about the case straight, and judging its legitimacy is to subsequently apply independently justified criteria of legitimacy. But can facts and norms be so neatly separated? This paper explores the contrary view that representing power and judging it are intertwined. On this view, representation affects not merely the circumstances of application of criteria of judgment, but their very content and justification.
