The Paradox of Liberal Democracy According to Chantal Mouffe: Analytical and Critical Study

Foto Chantal Mouffe

Ferdinandus Jehalut. The Paradox of Liberal Democracy According to Chantal Mouffe: Analytical and Critical Study. Mini-thesis. Undergraduate Philosophy Program, Theological Studies Program – Philosophy of Chatolic Religion, Ledalero Catholic School of Philosophy. 2020.

This study has three main objectives. First, to explain what democracy, liberalism and liberal democracy are. Second, to analyze and explain the paradox of liberal democracy according to Chantal Mouffe. Third, to describe a number of responses and criticisms of Chantal Mouffe's view of the paradox of liberal democracy.

The method used in this study is a secondary data analysis method. The author tries to find, read, and analyze books, journals, news, and other writings related to this theme, both written by Chantal Mouffe himself and by other writers as far as the themes are concerned.

Based on the results of the study concluded that liberal democracy which is an articulation of the tradition of democracy and liberalism has a number of insurmountable paradoxes. From the democratic tradition there are principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and identity between governing and governed. From the tradition of liberalism there are principles such as the rule of law, the defence of human rights, and respect of individual freedom/liberty. Of these principles, the most fundamental paradox lies in the principle of freedom/liberty which is a legacy of liberalism and equality which is a legacy of democracy. The paradox between these two principles cannot be overcome and becomes the driving spirit of historical political development.

Besides the paradox above, another paradox of liberal democracy according to Chantal Mouffe is related to the logic of inclusion and exclusion. Democracy always draws a frontier between those who are demos and those who are not. Between demos and non demos cannot be prosecuted and the same obligations and rights are imposed. The only people who can claim the same rights and obligations are those who fall into the demos category, which are limited by the concept of the nation-state. The problem actually arises when this principle is connected with the principle of liberal equality which is universal and is not limited by the concept of the nation-state. Liberal equality is the equality of all humanity. The basis lies in the main idea of ​​liberalism, which is universal humanity. While the main idea of ​​democracy is citizens (demos).

From the two constitutive paradoxes above, the next paradox emerges, namely the paradoxical praxis of political history. The historical paradox of political praxis deals with the logical consequences of the constitutive framework of liberal democracy and the actual manifestation of it as political praxis. This paradox is seen in the increasingly strong hegemony of neoliberalism and global capitalism. In the author's analysis, in Indonesia, this is evident in the strengthening of oligarchies in the national and local political arena. Mouffe also found the same problem in Latin America and Western Europe.

In Mouffe's analysis, the strengthening of oligarchies and global capitalism occurs because people no longer think about finding possible alternatives to the existing hegemonic order. What fosters this way of thinking for Mouffe is the bearers of the third way (Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens) and consensus democracy (Rawls and Habermas). For them, democracy is a consensus production machine. Anyone who rejects consensus in a democracy is labeled as an ancient and enemy of civilization. As a result, politics loses its agonistic and conflictual dimensions. The political adversarial dimension disappears as the imaginary boundaries of politics (left and right) disappear. The agonistic debate between friend and adversary has disappeared. Politics is reduced to mere technical issues; something that is the domain of experts.

As an alternative to the existing hegemonic order, Mouffe advocates an agonistic democratic model. This model emphasizes the principle of radical discourse. This model is distinguished from radical democracy. Radical democracy is a political project. While agonistic democracy is an analytic theory. One of the projects defended in the theory of agonistic democracy is a radical democracy project that emphasizes the radicalization of the implementation of the principles of freedom and equality. However, Mouffe took this position not as a theorist, but as a citizen involved (political project). However, when he talks about agonistic democracy, he speaks as a political theorist (analytic theory).

Mouffe's view of agonistic democracy has aroused much serious debate among political thinkers in various parts of the world in the last few decades. Despite having enough supporters, Mouffe also did not escape criticism. In the author's analysis, there are a number of fundamental weaknesses in Mouffe's theory. Mouffe for example claims political liberation from the register of morality, but in its theoretical construction, Mouffe implicitly makes moral claims in politics. In addition, Mouffe who rejects consensus democracy and replaces it with a consensus democracy actually bases his disensus theory on consensus on the basic ethical values ​​of politics: freedom and equality for all.

On the other hand, Tamara Caraus explores the cosmopolitan potential in Mouffe's view based on four aspects of its agonism, namely: the fact of pluralization, the conversion of “enemies” to “adversaries”, conflictual consensus, and contestation practices. In a number of aspects of this agonism, it seems that Mouffe's theory undermines its initial anti-cosmopolitan claims.

Even though its opponents have been criticized from various sides, according to the author, Mouffe's theory remains relevant for contemporary democratic discourse characterized by mainstreaming the consensus democracy model. The concept of agonistic democracy exists as a counterweight in charge of counteracting the bad excesses of consensus democratic hegemony for the development of national and global politics. Therefore, the authors see the need to further develop studies on this Chantal Mouffe thinking. If in this paper the research is more of a purely theoretical analysis, other researchers are expected to explore deeper the relevance of Chantal Mouffe's thought to the development of global and national politics today.

Key words: Democracy, Liberalism, Liberal Democracy, Liberal Democracy Paradox, Agonistic Democracy