En la Teoría Política y la Ciencia Política contemporáneas, el gobierno de entidades políticas tan extensas y duraderas como los imperios modernos se ignora o, en el mejor de los casos, se considera de interés secunda-rio, entendiendo que pertenecen a un pasado lejano con escasa relevancia para el pensa-miento político moderno en general y para la concepción del Estado soberano en parti-cular. Partiendo de la coexistencia histórica y teórica del Estado y el imperio al concebir el orden político moderno, el presente artículo examinará cómo las ideas sobre la sobera-nía estatal y el gobierno de imperios com-parten en realidad dilemas fundamentales relacionados con la autoridad, el territorio y las fronteras, aunque las posibles respuestas ante esos dilemas frecuentemente difieran.

In contemporary political theory and political science, the government of such enduring and extensive polities as modern empires is, at best, considered of secondary interest, and in most cases displaced as enti-ties belonging to a distant past with a mini-mum of relevance to modern political thou-ght in general and to the conception of the sovereign state in particular. Taking its point of departure from the historical and theore-tical coexistence of state and empire when conceiving modern political order, this ar-ticle examines how ideas about contempo-rary state sovereignty and the rule of empire share fundamental dilemmas concerning authority, territory and borders, even though the possible answers to those dilemmas often differ.

El mundo interno está estrechamente vinculado con la forma de concebir los vínculos entre el ciudadano y el poder público. Aspectos que en el pensamiento político moderno frecuentemente han sido atribuidos a un orden externo, relacionado con el Estado soberano, pueden, no obstante, situarse en el fuero interno de los ciudadanos. Problemas vinculados con la fundación del orden político, tales como el temor, la inseguridad y la divergencia, no únicamente provienen de fuerzas externas situadas en el exterior del ciudadano, sino también de su mundo interno, lo cual significa que la contingencia política abarca ese mundo. Thomas Hobbes vuelve una y otra vez sobre la necesidad de controlar o minimizar la contingencia del fuero interno en el marco del estado soberano. El presente artículo pretende, sin embargo, ampliar las perspectivas que en el pensamiento político moderno han sido dominadas por la soberanía estatal, al inquirir sobre cómo el mundo interno es concebido en relación con la tensión entre Estado (o república) e imperio como la fundación del orden político. La coexist encia histórica y teórica de Estados e imperios no necesariamente ha sido antagónica o de exclusión mutua, como frecuentemente ha sostenido el republicanismo moderno. Si el nexo entre república e imperio constituye una parte inherente del orden político, quedan por tratar cuestiones sobre cómo ese nexo está relacionado con el mundo interno del ciudadano. La forma en que se define el ciudadano y su self en relación con Estados e imperios modernos se nutre de y tiene consecuencias para concepciones de territorialidad, gobierno y soberanía.

The internal world is closely related to how the bonds between the citizens and public power are conceived. Aspects that in modern political thought often have been attributed to an external order associated with the sovereign state can nonetheless also be located in the foro interno of the citizens. Problems associated with the foundations of the political order, such as fear, insecurity and divergence, do not only stem from external forces located outside of the citizens, but from their internal world, which means that political contingency comprises that world. Thomas Hobbes returns once and again to the necessity to control or minimize the contingency of the foro interno within the sovereign state. This paper seeks however to widen the perspectives dominated by sovereign statehood in modern thought, by inquiring how the internal world is conceived in relation to the tension between state (republic) and empire as the foundations of political order. The historical and politico-theoretical existence of states and empires has not necessarily been contentious or of mutual exclusion in this regard, as for example modern republicanism frequently has claimed. If the link between republic and empire is an intrinsic part of political order, questions remain to be asked about how this link is related to the inner world of the citizen.

In this study, it is emphasized that the link between representation, state, citizens, and democracy does not exclusively refer to popular participation and principles of institutional designation. On the basis of conceptions of representation by thinkers such as Arendt and Hobbes, it is argued that political representation does not only precede, but constantly intervene in the notion of a democracy located in sovereign states. When we examine the conceptual relationship between citizens and state we find a series of decisive dilemmas associated with the life contingency of citizens, on the one hand, and the need for a political order, on the other. This is why the conception of political representation developed in this article is not based on principles of identity or correspondence, but on contingent public spaces and metonymical processes, which make possible to gather dispersed attributes in order to generate notions of overarching political order, such as the sovereign state.