The question of political pluralism is an important one, given that liberal democracies must give it its due place without letting it tear apart the social fabric. One of the dominant theories...Show moreThe question of political pluralism is an important one, given that liberal democracies must give it its due place without letting it tear apart the social fabric. One of the dominant theories within political philosophy on political pluralism is deliberative democratic theory, which advocates a rational consensus. By insisting on rational conditions for political argument and consensus, it believes that it is possible to both legitimize political power and ensure freedom and equality for all. Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism is a critical response to this rationalistic framework. She maintains that instead of enabling political pluralism, deliberative democracy precludes it. In her view, rationality is not some kind of objective parameter, but a hegemonic expression of power. Inspired by Schmitt, Wittgenstein and Derrida, Mouffe argues that political pluralism requires a conflictual consensus, one in which adversaries battle over the conceptions of the ethico-political principles of liberal democracy, i.e. freedom and equality. To see which framework can better accommodate political pluralism, I will be discussing both Mouffe’s critique of deliberative democratic theory and deliberative democratic theory’s critique of Mouffe. Although Mouffe (necessarily) cannot give a conclusive argument in favour of agonistic pluralism, her deliberative democratic critics do not succeed in dispelling it.Show less
