Abstract:

Chantal Mouffe criticizes the aggregative and negotiative democracy models from economic and ethical concepts, because he cannot understand the political constituent antagonisms. In these two models, he claims that he moves from the understanding of the universal, rational and unidentity individual. These models instead suggest a model called agonistic or radical democracy. This model claims that it will emulate antagonisms and turn them into agonism. For this purpose, it makes the ethical-political principles of liberal democracy, such as freedom and equality, a prerequisite for agonistic controversy. Although modern democracy sees pluralism as the founding element, it limits pluralism to those who adopt liberal democratic principles. The condition that this limit may be legitimate is to refer to certain moral principles and norms. In other words, liberal democratic principles are not only political but also moral principles. In this case, the agonistic democracy model approaches a negotiating framework. This article claims that Mouffe’s agonistic democracy theory and negotiating theory are compatible models and that Mouffe exaggerates the difference between the two theories. Mouffe's agonistic democracy model is sitting on a negotiating framework, unlike what he defends.

Keywords: