The “populist” foundation of liberal democracy: Jan-Werner Müller, Chantal Mouffe, and post-foundationalism

This article examines the connection between populism and post-foundationalism in the context of contemporary debates about populism as a strategy for the Left. I argue that there is something “populist” about every constitutional order, including liberal democratic ones. I argue so drawing on Chantal Mouffe’s theories of hegemony, agonistic democracy, and left populism. Populism is the quintessential form of post-foundational politics because, rightly understood, populism constructs the object it claims to represent, namely the people. As such, it expresses the fact that, because there is no ultimate foundation, politics consists in the construction of contingent foundations. I develop this argument through readings of Jan-Werner Müller and Chantal Mouffe, showing the differences between their respective post-foundational approaches. I show that Müller cannot uphold the distinction between populism and democracy in the way he seeks to do, but I also argue that this does not mean that we must jettison all normativity, only that it requires that we rethink normativity in hegemonic terms.

Koncepcja polityczności Chantal Mouffe a poststrukturalizm w filozofii interpretacji prawniczej

The present article deals with the political nature of the interpretation theory, using poststructuralism as a source of reflection. The analysis is conducted by using poststructuralist epistemology and poststructuralist political theory. The thesis of this article, which is metatheoretical in nature, is that the poststructuralist concepts of legal interpretation can be used only after simultaneously adopting the assumptions of the political philosophy which originated in poststructuralism. Chantal Mouffe’s concept of the political is very much tied to considerations about agonistic democracy and agonistic pluralism, which gives us original answers to the questions of how society, the political system, and the legal system can help us prevent the emergence and flourishing of authoritarianism. The first part of the text presents the poststructuralist definition of the political and politics as well as shows its importance for the analysis of the contemporary legal interpretation concepts. In the next part, the author discusses the topic of poststructuralism in jurisprudence and its most important features for a change in the discourse of philosophy of interpretation. The third part of the article examines poststructuralist anti-essentialism using the example of one from among the most famous neopragmatist and poststructuralist philosophers — Stanley Fish. In the fourth and last part of the considerations, the thesis about the necessity of joint use of poststructuralist epistemology and political theory for research on legal interpretation is verified and metatheoretical conclusions are drawn from it.

DEMOKRASI AGONISTIK DAN SPIRIT BARU PASCA-PILKADA

The simultaneous general election of district heads in 270 regencies, municipalities and provinces in Indonesia in 2020 has ended. The end of the simultaneous general elections does not mean the end of competition, debate and discourse in democracy. A living democracy needs constant contestation, debate and discourse. That is the essence of the idea of agonistic democracy. The idea of agonistic democracy will be discussed in a sharp and comprehensive manner in this paper. Thus, the aim of this paper is to explain the concept of agonistic democracy. Furthermore, starting from the idea of agonistic democracy, the writer will show what spirit needs to be nurtured after the simultaneous regional elections that have just been held. The approach used in this paper is a speculative-analysis approach.

Pedagogies of agonistic democracy and citizenship education

Concerned about the limits of normative deliberative pedagogies, we designed and organized a workshop to explore to possibilities of an agonistic pedagogy for global citizenship education. We brought together a range of participants including national and international primary and university students, researchers and curriculum developers and we created pedagogical activities in which disagreement was fostered. We aimed to normalize conflict, create channels for the expression of political emotions and generate opportunities for the emergence of new subjectivities. Our findings suggest that the plurality of participants and the conflict-orientated pedagogies facilitated the normalization of conflict, the participants’ affective engagement with Others and the creation of new subjectivities. They also indicate that older participants had less positive attitudes towards conflict-orientated pedagogies and discussions on abstract topics did not foster ‘affective’ engagement. We examine potential implications for further educational research and practice considering the singularities of this project.

Sport and the Quest for Unity: How the Logic of Consensus Undermines Democratic Culture

In response to the political protest of National Football League (NFL) player Colin Kaepernick and subsequent controversial comments from President Donald Trump, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft declared, “There is no greater unifier in this country than sports and, unfortunately, nothing more divisive than politics.” Such a sentiment is commonplace in sport, whether it is about race, political affiliations, or responses to tragic events, and it quickly became an organizing theme for NFL owners as they sought to defuse the issue. Meanwhile, sports media and others echoed the call for unity and largely dropped discussion of the commitment to social justice that had originally animated Kaepernick’s protest. This essay argues that claims to unity are rooted in the logic of consensus, a value in democratic theory that offers an illusion of peaceful cooperation while denying important conflicts and differences. As understood through the rhetorical tradition and theories of agonistic democracy, athletic activism in the NFL has been important precisely because it disrupts the illusion of unity on which the national anthem ritual rests. In short, contesting unity and consensus seeks to identify communicative resources that facilitate social justice in and through sport.

Political symbols and symbolic policy of the Western European left radical parties

The concept of agonistic democracy put forward by Ch. Mouffe opposes both the understanding of political conflict as antagonistic, the parties of which regard each other as implacable enemies, and the actual denial of the conflict in the consensus theories of democracy. This concept, in which a political conflict is seen as a struggle between two opponents, each of which recognizes the legitimacy of the other, has found its implementation in the activities of new left-wing radical parties that have appeared in Western Europe over the past 10–15 years. Their appearance was a reaction to the crisis and the decline of most of the «old» left-wing radical parties that came after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR. The «new» left-wing radicals seek to develop their own identity, which is different from the communist and socialdemocratic ones, which is also manifested in the new emblematic symbols they invent, which are not like the sickle, hammer, and five-pointed star of the «old» left-wing radicals, and in the new discursive strategies. On the example of the Podemos party (Spain), as well as the Left Party of France and the Party «Unconquered France», it is examined how the «new» left radicals construct the subject of political action – «people», «popular majority» or simply «We», opposed «Those above», «caste», «oligarchy». But with all the harshness of anti-capitalist and anti-liberal rhetoric, the conflict of «new» left-wing radicals with the system is more agonistic than antagonistic: they want not to destroy the old institutions, but to win them back from the opposite side, not to replace democracy with the dictatorship of the advanced class, but to «return» its people and expand it.

Political Deliberative Process and Consensus: A Review of Objections to Liberal Democracy

In contemporary times, several theories have highlighted the role of democracy in resolving public controversies, especially in the face of pluralism. Based on this scenario, this article aims to resize some of the main criticisms of liberal democracy. Therefore, initially, the essay presents the striking features of the political thought of Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls for the proper understanding of this review. Then, these characteristics are confronted with objections formulated by Chantal Mouffe, who is an advocate of a concept of agonistic democracy.

Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice

This article seeks to explore democratic theory by focusing on the example of agonistic democracy, in which contest between citizens is valued for its potential to render politics more inclusive, more engaging, and more virtuous. Using Connolly and Tully’s inclusivism, Chantal Mouffe’s adversarialism, and David Owen’s perfectionism, the article discusses democratic theory as a critique, a series of normative proposals, and a potential bridge between political theory and public policy. It is this bridge that enables democratic theory to pull together critical and normative discussions with those surrounding public policy and institutional design.