Mouffe and Rummens: The debate
Mouffe and Rummens have different ideas about the consequences of the gap between this ideal situation and actual deliberation. Chantal Mouffe starts her argument with a distinction between politics and the political. With the political she means ‘the dimension of antagonism’ that is ‘constitutive of human societies’ (Mouffe, 2005, p. 9), while politics is ‘the set of practices and institutions through which an order is created, organizing human coexistence in the context of conflictuality provided by the political’ (Mouffe, 2005, p. 9). According to Mouffe, following Schmitt (1976), political identities relate to each other in an us-versus-them dimension. Identities, and thus also collective political identities,
…show more content…
20). An us-versus-them relationship in which the opposing factions consider each other as enemies is antagonistic. Democratic institutions need to alter this relationship in an agonistic one, which means that the factions that are in conflict, while they admit that it is not possible to find a rational solution for their disagreement, nonetheless consider the other as a legitimate party. Democratic institutions, for example those in a parliamentary system, ensure that potentially antagonistic conflicts are transformed in conflicts in which the different parties recognize each other as adversaries (Mouffe, 2005). There is an agreement on what Mouffe (2005, p.31) calls the ‘ethico-political values’ of liberty and equality, but a continuous conflict about how we should interpret an realize them exists. This agonistic conflict ‘is not one that could be resolved through deliberation and rational discussion’ (Mouffe, 1999, p. 755). There is ‘a struggle between opposing hegemonic conflicts which can never be reconciled rationally. It is the very configuration of power relations around which a given society is structured’ (Mouffe, 2005, p.21). Thus, Mouffe argues that power struggles and conflict are inherent of our coexistence and that the deliberative democratic model aimed at reaching rational consensus, does not recognize the antagonistic nature of our society and fails to understand politics as a continuous power struggle. The main problem with the idea of deliberative democracy is that it does not understand the nature of the conflict that is inherent of society (Mouffe, 1999). The conditions of ideal deliberation cannot be met, because there is an ontological gap between ideal and real deliberation, due to the ever conflictual nature of the political. Instead of deliberative democracy we should have the
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
Bessette, Joseph M., John J. Pitney, and First Jr. American Government And Politics, Deliberation, Democracy, And Citizenship No Seperate Policy Chapters Editions. Boston: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2010. 429. Print.
The idea of a lasting, ideally global, peace has been present in the minds of people for centuries. The most notable formulation of this is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. “He saw it as a condition that needed to be maintained by politics between states with governments which represented society and separation of power. From this basic framework stems the idea called “democratic peace theory” (pg. 82). Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) asserts that democracies do not generally fight other democracies because they share common norms and domestic institutions that constrain international, state actors from going to war. Sebastian Rosato states, “In practical terms democratic peace theory provides the intellectual justification for the belief that spreading democracy abroad will perform the dual task of enhancing American national security promoting world peace” (pg. 585).
The Putney debates undoubtedly had a profound effect on the development of democracy over the last few centuries. Closely examining the arguments of the Grandees and the Levellers place emphasis on how different factions can view democracy differently, and what some groups can do to limit the freedom of others. The topics of property in relation to interests, anarchy, and the idea of consent gave the Grandees an argument that most could agree with when taking into consideration the stakes at risk.
William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).
The theory of democratic peace is a classical idea that has been cited repeatedly by scholars. While Kant was not a darling of democracy, he wrote about perpetual peace, which he describes would only happen if states achieve a form of civil constitution. To him, perpetual peace exists when a regime honors property owned by citizens and when citizens live equally being the subjects based on a representative government that is built on the premise of separation of powers. The theory of democratic peace is therefore built on the proposition that some negative elements of government can be disabled to make a nation thrive in an international arena. This majorly entails elements of war. This idea is strengthened by the fact that relations between states in an international setting are not provoked by benefits of one nation being a burden to another. Instead, these relations are based on a mutual benefit and togetherness. If that proposition is anything to go by, it loses it meaning when states behave contrary to what they suggest on an international platform. The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained...
Since around 1990, the number of democracies worldwide has increase exponentially compared to autocracies within just less than 1000 globally (Appendix A). This increase in the democratic ideals and governance shows the importance democracy plays in the liberalist view of international relations and politics. Burchill outlines that democratic governance and the institutions it exhibits causes the power of the ruling parties t...
compromise. Jefferson’s account suggests the growing divide, showing that without a mediator, the ideologies are too far divided to achieve legisla...
Although Levy believes that the democratic peace theory is by all accounts an empirical law in international relations, there are some scholars who have questioned and examined the practicality of the theory as it applies to a more conflict based or economic context. Scholars have researched this theory using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. On the qualitative side scholars have tested the theory by comparatively analyzing democracies that have actually engaged in conflict (Holsti, 1996; Ganguly, 1997; Kacawicz, 1998, Kivimaki, 2001). On the quantitative side however, scholars have tested the theory focusing more on whether or not the theory is applicable to lesser economically developed democracies (Hegre, 2000; Mousseau et al, 2000, 2002, 2003).
They explained that the main goal of political leaders is to be reelected in order to remain in office and that to achieve this goal they will threaten to use force to resolve a conflict only if there is a high possibility of a successful result. Indeed, according to Kant, when given the choice, very few people would vote positively to go to war and since the state is ruled by a democratic government representing the people, it is supposed to make the same choice as the people. The theorists of this era said that democracies were characterized by norms of non-violent conflict resolution, compromise and the rule of law. They claimed that these norms are externalized into the international
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
The democratic peace theory was not always seen as the substantial argument and significant contribution to the field of International Relations that it is today. Prior to the 1970’s, it was the realist and non-realist thought that took preeminence in political theoretical thinking. Though the democratic peace theory was first criticized for being inaccurate in its claim that democracy promotes peace and as such democracies do not conflict with each other, trends, statistical data, reports have suggested and proved that the democratic peace theory is in fact valid in its claim. Over the years, having been refined, developed and amended, it is now most significant in explaining modern politics and it is easy to accept that there is indeed a lot of truth in the stance that democracy encourages peace. The democratic peace theory is a concept that is largely influenced by the likes of Immanuel Kant, Wilson Woodrow and Thomas Paine.
In this essay I will be analyzing the role of diversity in democracy, I will start with direct and representative democracy’s, then continue onto the primary focus of this essay which will be the analysis of an essay by Joshua Cohen, I will conclude by raising some of my issues with deliberative democracy and the solutions required to allow the maximum amount of diversity. In order to discuss how we may represent diversity in democracy, we must first make some distinctions between the different types of democracy. Democracy is any system of government that is controlled by the people. The first form of democracy was direct democracy, this was when citizens would gather and directly vote on their preferred legislation, this method fell out of use as societies grew larger and more impersonal.
...ialogue are enveloped in the great ‘ism’ constructs for which this extremely modern political theory is known (Hughes, Chp.3). And as the Constructivist sees social groups interacting within the world, he contributes to our understanding of the groups through the invention of identity. The Constructivists label groups of people with common interests and gives words with which to speak of rising ideas and philosophies.
Max Weber, a late 19th and early 20th century political scientist, once described politics as “a strong and slow boring of hard boards” that “takes both passion and perspective” dedicated to the idea “that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible” (GPT, 432). Weber is basing this on idea of politics, that are activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power (lecture, 8/29/2016) Although great in many forms and continues to bring order to most of the world, modern politics has proven time and time again to be a slow process that can be a very hard tool to use to inflict