Towards an agonistic account of democracy, conflict, and institutions

Abstract

In this paper, I offer a move back from a trend in political theory that posits strong divergence—even a contradiction—between two meanings of democracy. On the one hand, a liberal account of democracy conceives it as the set of institutions that shape a political regime and allow government; on the other, a radical tradition identifies democracy with a critical principle for transforming social order. By discussing these trends through the opposition between institution and conflict, I make the case for an agonistic approach of democratic institutions and conflict that relocates democracy both beyond liberalism and the radical tradition. I will do so by critically examining the works of Claude Lefort and Miguel Abensour, principally, where a Machiavellian ontology of social conflict inhibits this agonistic approach. I then draw on the analysis of Hannah Arendt and Jacques Rancière in order to argue for a political theory of democracy that accounts for this link.