Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? The Relevance of the Habermas-Mouffe Debate for Third World Politics

Abstract

In recent decades, one cannot have failed to notice the spread of Western liberal democracy throughout the world, whether in Eastern Europe or many parts of the Third World. (1) Yet the ascent of liberal democracy has been accompanied by ethnic nationalisms, religious fundamentalisms, civil wars, and genocide. Furthermore, much as in the West, in those developing countries with already well-entrenched liberal democratic regimes, there has been growing public dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. This unease is evidenced by such phenomena as the rise of popular protest and social movements, lower voter turnout, and the inability of public institutions to meet citizens' demands and needs. Jurgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe speak directly to this crisis of liberal Both are democratic theorists who, while defending the gains of Western liberal democratic regimes, are critical of them, believing them to be far from sufficient or complete. It is not enough, Habermas and Mouffe contend, to have the outward trimmings and institutions of liberal democracy (elections, parliaments, rule of law, and so on); we also need to ensure the quality and inclusiveness of democratic processes in the multiple spheres of social life and within all public institutions. Many of the sociocultural problems of nationalism, religious resurgence, and popular protest noted above, they argue, are precisely the product of political neglect and exclusion by regimes purporting to be democratic. Thus, both theorists make a compelling argument for the need to deepen or extend democracy. However, Habermas and Mouffe differ on how to bring this about. Habermas's vision, which he labels deliberative relies on reasoned and inclusive public deliberation that is geared to reaching consensual decisions. His arguments foreground concerns about legitimacy and (universal) justice, concerns that he believes are ignored by poststructuralists at their peril. Mouffe's (poststructuralist) vision of democracy is critical of Habermas's defense of rationality and universalism, believing these to be inimical to pluralist societies. Her agonistic pluralism accentuates ways for democratic politics to represent difference. Thus, the debate between the two theorists rests on how best to promote democratic participation and decision making without impeding sociocultural difference. To put it another way, the debate hinges on democratically representing difference without thereby sanctioning injustice and intolerance. In this article, I call attention to several significant dimensions of the debate. As already noted, while both theorists valorize, criticize, and wish to extend liberal democracy, does so from a different ontological standpoint. (2) In this sense, one's differences bring out the strengths and limits of the other's democratic theory. To appropriate Richard Bernstein's words from another context, in many ways, is each other's other; their debate can be seen as an allegory of the 'modern/postmodern' condition and is a juxtaposed rather than an integrated cluster of changing elements that resist reduction to a common denominator, essential core, or generative first principle. (3) This being the case, I do not attempt to reconcile the differences between the two theorists or integrate their democratic visions; rather, believing that (and showing) the tensions between them to be irresolvable but fruitful and educative, I treat both theorists agonally to highlight some of the limits, strains, a nd possibilities of contemporary Third World democratic politics. As compelling and relevant as Habermas's and Mouffe's democratic theories may be, surprisingly little work has been done to relate these theories to the political challenges of the Third World. A voluminous (and still growing) literature exists on Habermas's critique/vision of Western democracy, but very little exists on its application to the developing world. …