Consensus and Agonism in Democratic Theory: Comparing the Approaches of Habermas and Mouffe

Öz

This article offers a comparative analysis of Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action and Chantal Mouffe’s conception of agonistic democracy. It explores how these two theoretical frameworks interpret key democratic concepts such as legitimacy, participation, the public sphere, and representation. While Habermas emphasizes rational deliberation and consensus as the foundation of democratic legitimacy, Mouffe argues that conflict and dissent are essential to democratic vitality. The study, based on literature review and conceptual comparison, illustrates these perspectives through examples from social media, civil society movements, and local democracy. The analysis highlights that both approaches provide valuable insights into contemporary democratic theory. It concludes that pluralist democracies require a balanced consideration of both consensus-oriented and conflictual democratic practices to address the complexities of legitimacy and representation in today’s political contexts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Habermas
• Mouffe
• Communicative Action Theory
• Agonistic Democracy
• Participatory Democracy

Demokratik Teoride Uzlaşı ve Agonizm: Habermas ve Mouffe’un Yaklaşımlarının Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Bu makale, Jürgen Habermas’ın iletişimsel eylem kuramı ile Chantal Mouffe’un agonistik demokrasi anlayışı arasında karşılaştırmalı bir analiz sunmaktadır. Çalışma, bu iki kuramsal çerçevenin meşruiyet, katılım, kamusal alan ve temsil gibi temel demokratik kavramları nasıl yorumladığını incelemektedir. Habermas, demokratik meşruiyetin temelini akılcı müzakere ve uzlaşıya dayandırırken; Mouffe, çatışma ve muhalefetin demokratik canlılık için vazgeçilmez olduğunu savunur. Literatür taraması ve kavramsal karşılaştırmaya dayanan çalışma, bu iki perspektifi sosyal medya, sivil toplum hareketleri ve yerel demokrasi örnekleri üzerinden somutlaştırmaktadır. Analiz, her iki yaklaşımın da çağdaş demokrasi teorisine önemli katkılar sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Makale, çoğulcu demokrasilerin meşruiyet ve temsilin günümüzdeki karmaşıklıklarını ele alabilmek için hem uzlaşı odaklı hem de çatışmacı demokratik pratiklerin dengeli bir biçimde değerlendirilmesi gerektiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Habermas
• Mouffe
• İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı
• Agonistik Demokrasi
• Katılımcı Demokrasi

Kaynakça

1. Abers, R. N. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
2. Alves, F. de B., & Lima, J. N. (2016). Between consensus and dissensus: Institutional dialogue beyond the dichotomy deliberation vs. agonism. Argumenta Journal Law, 24, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.35356/argumenta.v0i24.800
3. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., . . . Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
4. Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1997.0009
5. Connolly, W. E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. University of Minnesota Press.
6. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press.
7. Dryzek, J. S. (2005). Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory, 33(2), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591704268372
8. Erman, E. (2009). What is wrong with agonistic pluralism? Reflections on conflict in democratic theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35(9), 1039–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343385

9. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
10. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
11. Freeden, M. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
12. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press.
13. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.
14. Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
15. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press.
16. Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press.
17. Habermas, J. (2001). On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action (B. Fultner, Trans.). Polity.
18. Habermas, J. (2004). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1, T. McCarthy, Trans.). Polity Press.
19. Habermas, J. (2006). The theory of communicative action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and system – A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Polity Press.
20. Habermas, J. (2009). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Polity Press.
21. Hasibuan, E. J., Putra, A. D. R. & Dirgantari, A. S. (2024). The role of social media algorithms in shaping public opinion during political campaigns. International Journal of Social and Human, 1(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.59613/z2sbvw50
22. Honig, B. (1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Cornell University Press.
23. Horváth, S. (2018). Between conflict and consensus: Why democracy needs conflicts and why communities should delimit their intensity. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2018-0015
24. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
25. Maisaroh, S., Novianty, S., & Azalea, S. F. (2024). Pengaruh Algoritma Facebook terhadap Polarisasi Politik di Kota Medan Selama Pemilu 2024. Eksekusi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Administrasi Negara, 2(3), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.55606/eksekusi.v2i3.1235
26. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso.
27. Mouffe, C. (2005a). On the political. Routledge.
28. Mouffe, C. (2005b). The return of the political. Verso.
29. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. Verso.
30. Mouffe, C. (2018). For a left populism. Verso.
31. Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy (J. Rose, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
32. Schmitt, C. (1996). The concept of the political (G. Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
33. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
34. Weber, M. (2011). Methodology of the social sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Eds. & Trans.). Routledge.
35. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. SAGE Publications.
36. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029005004