[English] An Endeavour To Explore The Balance For Political Debates

Source: Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research, Vol. 66 (3), 745-758/

AN ENDEAVOUR TO EXPLORE THE BALANCE FOR POLITICAL DEBATES

The paper basically follows that order: The introduction of deliberative democracy and its dimensions. After that, it reviews two main critiques of several thoughts about that topic. Then, Chantal Mouffe reviews agonistic model of democracy.

While Chantal Mouffe reviews elements and main points of deliberative democracy and agonistic model, he also calls us to rethink and reform those thoughts.

She suggests that though there are several kinds of deliberative democracy, the most interesting and (according to me, too) appealing one is Habermasian approach. Habermas and their followers’ aim is to propose a reformulation in communicative terms of the classical notions of democratic theory.

Seyla Benhabis’s Point

The other point that Chantal Mouffe takes into consideration is that Seyla Benhabis focuses on sovereignty of people and compatible approaches.

Haberman basically says: There are issues that have to remain outside the practices of rational public debates like existential issues.

According to Wittgenstein, procedure only exists as a complex ensemble of practices. While Chantal Mouffe referring to Rawls and Cavell, she suggests that we should never refuse bearing our responsibility for our decisions.

Ideal Speech Situation

Mouffe also reviews some aspects of Habermas’ “ideal speech situation”. It is important as well to grasp the main thought like Lacanian’s approach statement for authoritarian.

According to author, the need to acknowledge the dimension of power and antagonism and their ineradicable character is another point to comprehend that issue.

Chantal Mouffe discusses the concept of agonistic pluralism as a way to address the limitations of deliberative democracy. Agonistic pluralism emphasizes the importance of conflict and confrontation in politics, arguing that it is necessary for the expression of diverse viewpoints and the mobilization of democratic passions.

She explores the idea of radical democracy, which challenges the traditional liberal democratic framework by advocating for a more participatory and inclusive form of democracy and highlights the de-universalization of political subjects as a key aspect of agonistic pluralism.

This concept challenges the idea of universal, rational political subject and instead recognizes the diversity of political identities and perspectives within society. She examines the implications of agonistic pluralism for political theory and practice. By embracing conflict and contestation, agonistic pluralism offers a more dynamic and inclusive vision of democracy.

She concludes by emphasizing importance of rethinking traditional democratic norms and practices in light of disaffection with democratic institutions. Agonistic pluralism offers provocative and innovative approach to democratic theory that seeks to revitalize democratic politics in era of growing discontent.

Attorney Semih TEMİZER