Res Publica

pp 1–24 | Cite as

Overcoming the Institutional Deficit of Agonistic Democracy

Article

Abstract

Agonistic democrats have enriched debates on the political challenge of pluralism by raising awareness for the depth of disagreements and the political potentials of conflict. However, they have so far failed to explore the shape of institutional settings that are conducive to agonism and show how the agonistic stance may, in a very practical sense, strengthen democracies’ capacity to deal with pluralism and conflict. This article argues that this ‘institutional deficit’ of agonistic democracy can be overcome. It develops an approach that reads theories of agonistic democracy as accounts of conflict regulation and uses principles of agonistic politics as measures for a critical assessment of institutional design. A discussion of a test case that is prominent in the recent literature on democratic innovations for pluralist societies—mini-publics—demonstrates that the principles of agonistic conflict regulation as developed by Mouffe, Connolly and Tully provide the basis for both a critique of certain institutions and a development of alternative designs.

Keywords

Agonism Disagreement Political conflict Institutions Democratic innovations Mini-publics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is a further developed version of papers that were presented at the ‘Agonism and Democratic Innovations’ Panel at the 2014 ECPR General Conference and at the 2015 Princeton Graduate Conference in Political Theory. I thank all participants of these events, in particular Graham Smith and Emilee Chapman, for the helpful discussions and comments. I also thank Oliver Hidalgo, Amanda Machin, Mihai Murariu, Markus Patberg, Jan Achim Richter, Maartje Schermer, Ulrike Spohn, Fabian Wenner and Ulrich Willems for helpful comments on later versions of the draft. I am grateful to the members of the Centre for Advanced Study in Bioethics, University of Münster, and the members of the Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, for numerous inspiring discussions on the subjects dealt with in this article. Also, my thanks are due to the two anonymous referees for their comments on the paper.

References

  1. Bächtiger, André, Kimmo Grönlund, and Maija Setälä. 2014. Towards a New Era of Deliberative Mini-Publics. In Deliberative Mini-Publics. Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, ed. André Bächtiger, Kimmo Grönlund, and Maija Setälä, 225–245. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, Sophie. 2011. Negotiating a ‘Democratic Ethos’: Moving Beyond the Agonistic—Communicative Divide. Planning Theory 10(2): 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers, Simone. 2003. Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Connolly, William E. 2002 [1991]. Identity\Difference. Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Expanded Edition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. Connolly, William E. 2004 [1995]. The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Connolly, William E. 2005. Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connolly, William E. 2010. A World of Becoming. In Democracy and Pluralism. The Political Thought of William E. Connolly, ed. Alan Finlayson, 222–235. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Deveaux, Monique. 1999. Agonism and Pluralism. Philosophy and Social Criticism 25(4): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dryzek, John S. 2005. Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies. Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia. Political Theory 33(2): 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dryzek, John S. and Robert E. Goodin. 2006. Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics. Politics and Society 34(2): 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dryzek, John S. and Simon Niemeyer. 2006. Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals. American Political Science Review 50(3): 634–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erman, Eva. 2009. What is Wrong with Agonistic Pluralism? Reflections on Conflict in Democratic Theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism 35(9): 1039–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fung, Archon. 2003. Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and their Consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3): 338–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fishkin, James S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fossen, Thomas. 2012. Agonism and the Law. Philosophy and Social Criticism 38(3): 327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goi, Simona. 2005. Agonism, Deliberation, and the Politics of Abortion. Polity 37(1): 54–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gürsözlü, Fuat. 2009. Debate: Agonism and Deliberation—Recognizing the Difference. The Journal of Political Philosophy 17(3): 356–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howarth, David R. 2008. Ethos, Agonism and Populism. William Connolly and the Case for Radical Democracy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 10(2): 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jezierska, Katarzyna. 2011. Radical Democracy Redux: Politics and Subjectivity Beyond Habermas and Mouffe. Örebro: Örebro Universitet.Google Scholar
  21. Kalyvas, Andreas. 2009. The Democratic Narcissus: The Agonism of the Ancients Compared to that of the (Post)Moderns. In Law and Agonistic Politics, ed. Andrew Schaap, 15–41. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  22. Khan, Gulshan. 2013. Critical Republicanism: Jürgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe. Contemporary Political Theory 12(4): 318–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knops, Andrew. 2007. Debate: Agonism as Deliberation—On Mouffe’s Theory of Democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy 15(1): 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. 2001 [1985]. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  25. Lafont, Cristina. 2015. Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy? The Journal of Political Philosophy 23(1): 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 2006. Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman, 3–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Markell, Patchen. 1997. Contesting Consensus: Rereading Habermas on the Public Sphere. Constellations 3(3): 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McNay, Lois. 2014. The Misguided Search for the Political. Social Weightlessness in Radical Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  30. Mouffe, Chantal. 2005a. The Limits of John Rawls’s Pluralism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4(2): 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mouffe, Chantal. 2005b [1993]. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  32. Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  33. Niemeyer, Simon. 2014. Scaling Up Deliberation to Mass Publics: Harnessing Mini-Publics in a Deliberative System. In Deliberative Mini-Publics. Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, ed. André Bächtiger, Kimmo Grönlund, and Maija Setälä, 177–202. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  34. Owen, David and James Tully. 2007. Redistribution and Recognition: Two Approaches. In Multiculturalism and Political Theory, ed. Anthony Simon Laden, and David Owen, 265–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Owen, David and Graham Smith. 2015. Survey Article: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Systemic Turn. The Journal of Political Philosophy 23(2): 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rawls, John. 2005 [1993]. Political Liberalism. Expanded Edition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ryan, Matthew and Graham Smith. 2014. Defining Mini-Publics. In Deliberative Mini-Publics. Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, ed. André Bächtiger, Kimmo Grönlund, and Maija Setälä, 9–26. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schaap, Andrew. 2006. Agonism in Divided Societies. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32(2): 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaap, Andrew. 2009. Introduction. In Law and Agonistic Politics, ed. Andrew Schaap, 1–13. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, Graham and Corinne Wales. 2000. Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 48(1): 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, Graham. 2012. Deliberative Democracy and Mini-Publics. In Evaluating Democratic Innovations. Curing the Democratic Malaise?, ed. Brigitte Democratic, and Kenneth Newton, 90–111. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Tambakaki, Paulina. 2011. Agonism and the Reconception of European Citizenship. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13(4): 567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomassen, Lasse. 2007. Within the Limits of Deliberative Reason Alone. Habermas, Civil Disobedience and Constitutional Democracy. European Journal of Political Theory 6(2): 200–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tully, James. 2002. The Unfreedom of the Moderns in Comparison to Their Ideals of Constitutional Democracy. The Modern Law Review Limited 65(2): 204–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tully, James. 2007 [1995]. Strange Multiplicity. Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key. Volume I: Democracy and Civic Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tully, James. 2014. On Global Citizenship. In On Global Citizenship. James Tully in Dialogue, ed. James Tully, 1–100. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  49. Weale, Albert. 2016. Between Consensus and Contestation. Journal of Health Organization and Management 30(5): 786–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wenman, Mark. 2003. ‘Agonistic Pluralism’ and Three Archetypal Forms of Politics. Contemporary Political Theory 2(2): 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wenman, Mark. 2013. Agonistic Democracy. Constituent Power in the Era of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wingenbach, E. (ed.). 2011. Institutionalizing Agonistic Democracy. Post-Foundationalism and Political Liberalism. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations