Abstract
The aim of this paper is to compare the political models of Jürgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe, on the way to identify which one has the greatest possibility of practical application. In order to fulfill this proposal, the research problem is: which theory is more adequate to analyze Brazilian democracy? The hypothesis of research previously formulated, in order to be tested, is that the Habermasian model is not applicable to the current situation of Brazilian democracy, which is closer to Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism. The scientific method used was hypothetical-deductive, developing a qualitative, primarily theoretical and descriptive research. The instrumental procedures (research techniques) employed were the literature review (selected, respectively, by the criteria of relevance, accessibility and topicality), documentary material and operational categories and concepts. It was concluded that disparities in factors such as Education and Income make it impossible to construct a communicational "middle level", moving away from the ethical-rational procedurality that guides the deliberative democracy model. On the other hand, the permeability of the political dimension and the plurality of external factors reinforce antagonisms and hegemonic relations, pointing to the proximity of Brazilian democracy with Mouffe's model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
