Towards antagonistic cosmopolitanism. A theoretical attempt to work though the controversy about the shape of global democracy

The article presents the analysis of the relation between two concepts, namely cosmopolitan democracy and agonistic multipolar order, whose author is Chantal Mouffe, in the context of the dispute about the preferred shape of global democracy. Both approaches are presented in the literature as opposing. The main thesis of the present article is the possibility of connecting them, but according to dialectical principles. The point is not about a smooth consensus but about the fact that the contradictions between those views can be treated as a condition of their interweaving. To this aim, I use two theoretical concepts: of antagonistic cosmopolitanism by Tamara Caraus and of antagonistic global constitutionalism by Christof Royer. On this basis I claim that Mouffe’s rejection of cosmopolitanism is not thoroughly coherent with her own assumptions. I acknowledge her argumentation that cosmopolitan democracy might lead to pluralism without antagonism but at the same time I suggest that Mouffe’s postulate of the multipolar order can lead to pluralist antagonism without agonism. It is only the establishment of cosmopolitan institutions and rules that will allow for really agonistic and radically pluralized global politics, thanks to which it will be possible to solve the contemporary world problems effectively. For these reasons agonistic cosmopolitanism can be regarded as the most optimal variant of global democracy.

Kant on just war and international order

Kant?s legal and political philosophy is essential for understanding and advancing international order. The article aims to posit arguments that confront the claims that Kant was just war theorist. Since that is the most opposed part of Kant?s political philosophy, mostly due to the misleading interpretation of his argumentation, the author presents Kant?s standpoint on the matters of just war and international order and discusses potential ambiguities between Kant?s and his critics? theories. Furthermore, the consequences of opponents? arguments considering states of states, world republic and cosmopolitan democracy in contemporary political philosophy are debated. Finally, the possibility of consent between the three model solutions which are arising from the contemporary international order theory and Kant?s position are compared and analysed.

Transnational Populism, Democracy, and Representation: Pitfalls and Potentialities

Current work on populism stresses its relationship to nationalism. However, populists increasingly make claims to represent ‘the people’ across beyond national borders. This advent of ‘transnational populism’ has implications for work on cosmopolitan democracy and global justice. In this paper, we advance and substantiate three claims. First, we stress populism’s performative and claimmaking nature. Second, we argue that transnational populism is both theoretically possible and empirically evident in the contemporary global political landscape. Finally, we link these points to debates on democracy beyond the state. We argue that, due to the a) performative nature of populism, b) complex interdependencies of peoples, and c) need for populists to gain and maintain support, individuals in one state will potentially have their preferences, interests, and wants altered by transnational populists’ representative claims. We unpack what is normatively problematic in terms of democratic legitimacy about this and discuss institutional and non-institutional remedies.

Reciprocal Cosmopolitanism

In the paper I analyse Daniele Archibugi’s conception of the new cosmopolitanism, aimed at formulation of a theory of cosmopolitan democracy capable of facing contemporary global problems that go beyond the competences of nation-states. My claim is that the advocates of the new cosmopolitanism have yet to come up with a theoretical minimum to which all parties of the cosmopolitan debate would subscribe. I argue that the main obstacle in formulation of a viable cosmopolitanism are attempts at imposition of the universalist uniformity inscribed in the traditional cosmopolitanism or, at best, a straightforward acceptance of cultural differences. In opposition to this, I outline the idea of reciprocal cosmopolitanism which, I believe, should proceed from the acknowledgement of human diversity, thus becoming a more inclusive project than its existing alternatives.

4. Democracy and Political Obligation

This chapter examines the claim that democracy is the ideal form of political obligation. It first traces the historical evolution of the term ‘democracy’ before discussing the debate between advocates of the protective theory and the participatory theory of democracy, asking whether it is possible to reconcile elitism with democracy and whether participatory democracy is politically realistic. The chapter proceeds to explain why democracy is viewed as the major grounding for political obligation, with emphasis on the problem of majority rule and what to do with the minority consequences of majoritarianism. It documents the contemporary malaise experienced by democracy and seeks to explain its perceived weaknesses as a form of rule. Finally, the chapter describes the new directions that democratic theory has taken in recent years, focusing on four theories: associative democracy, cosmopolitan democracy, deliberative democracy, and ecological democracy.

The Soul of Global Democracy

This chapter considers some objections lodged by universalist moral theorists. First it addresses Martha Nussbaum’s rejection of robust cosmopolitan institutions on grounds that they would not respect collective domestic choices. Such a stance is shown to give too little attention to domestic repression. Simon Caney’s partly instrumental model of cosmopolitan democracy is shown to provide important insights. It places such strong emphasis on respecting “reasonable disagreement” among persons, however, that it could affirm democratic outcomes deeply skewed in favor of the global majority. An alternative is outlined, informed by Ambedkar’s “soul of democracy” vision of social democracy. It would work to constitutionalize some global economic aim rights, including freer movement of persons, and support the development of related challenge mechanisms. Some practical insights to inform the development of such a framework, and rights specifications processes within it, are taken from the case of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, and from the European and other regional governance contexts.