Overcoming the Institutional Deficit of Agonistic Democracy

Westphal, Manon

doi:10.1007/s11158-018-9397-2

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To reinforce the above point and briefly see why, rather than being an ‘institutional deficit’ (Westphal, 2019), my focus on the demos and on agency is constitutive of the type of politics I am outlining, let me conclude by briefly reflecting on a possible reason for the polis hitherto being prioritised, and simultaneously for the fact that one might worry that in the view defended here institutions do not receive their due. The crucial difference might be found in the varying political anthropologies with which different authors operate.…”

Section: Failed Subjectivations and Commonality Across Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 92%

‘Beyond civil bounds’: The demos, political agency, subjectivation and democracy's boundary problem

Asseldonk

2020

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Failed Subjectivations and Commonality Across Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 92%

‘Beyond civil bounds’: The demos, political agency, subjectivation and democracy's boundary problem

Asseldonk

2020

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, if groups and their interests are essentialised, then agonism's transformative potential risks being lost, and the possibility to disrupt hegemonic identity constructions vanishes. In the agonistic conception of relationships, the idea of identity as 'wholeness' must be overcome, 57 since it may imply essentialised identity constructions that might stand in the way of agonism, with a risk of impeding the imagination of a potential plurality beyond the existing social order. 58 Lastly, relational principles for inclusion are the most conducive when it comes to agonism.…”

Section: Agonistic Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agonistic peace agreements? Analytical tools and dilemmas

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Later years have seen the growth of a vibrant theoretical discussion on agonistic peace and the importance of creating space for contestation, plurality, and dissensus post-accord. However, there has been very few attempts at embedding agonistic theory in empirical analyses of peace agreements. This study attends to that lacuna by investigating how agonistic principles can be integrated and investigated in peace agreements. We suggest a threefold set of indicators for assessing the degree to which peace agreements are invested with agonistic dynamics: (1) what types of spaces for interaction are offered post-accord; (2) what forms of inclusion are stipulated; and (3) how is the peace agreement framed in terms of conflict termination and consensus/dissensus? We illustrate how the various indicators could be put into motion in concrete analyses applying them to examples from the Oslo Accords, the Belfast Agreement, and the Colombian Peace Agreement. Finally, we discuss four dilemmas and problematiques of integrating agonistic ideas in peace agreements; the issue of power, the mixing of agonistic and liberal ideals in peace agreements, the principle of ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ and the related double-edged potential of constructive ambiguity and finally the challenges of implementing peace agreements.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, it remains unclear what the institutional translation of the agonistic path towards social integration is. Manon Westphal (2018), for example, refers to this gap as the institutional deficit of agonistic democracy. Agonistics account for an elaborate definition on what they call informal institutions but, the formally organised institutions in which politics takes place have been absent.…”

Section: So What? a Systemic Path From Inclusiveness Towards Sociamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, the systemic turn opens the door to consider the value of non-deliberative practices within the system of public deliberation. Regarding agonistic communication, for example, Manon Westphal suggests that ‘agonistic cases’ can contribute due to ‘their capacities to bring about situations in which the status quo is effectively called into question and opportunities for defining new rules and forms of social order open up’ (Westphal 2018, 18). These agonistic moments may not entail a consensual resolution of the controversy, but they might contribute to clarify the terms of disagreement and facilitate the emergence of ‘better’ conditions for social integration in later stages or other sites and venues within the system of public deliberation.…”

Section: So What? a Systemic Path From Inclusiveness Towards Sociamentioning

confidence: 99%

The constitutional paradox of complex diversity: A systemic path towards political integration through deliberation

Alias

2019

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identity and democracy and, more particularly, national identity and deliberative democracy account for a controversial relationship. However, from a classical deliberative democratic point of view, the controversy over who is the ‘we’ that needs to stand together in contemporary complex societies settled with the constitution of modern states. In this sense, the main contribution of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, I rebut the analytical appropriateness and conceptual coherence of Habermas’ discursive approach to democracy for the case of plurinational societies in contemporary constitutional democracies. A discussion of a test case – Catalonia – demonstrates that this inadequacy renders incoherent the deliberative model regarding one of its most fundamental premises: the equal weight of the principles of law and the principle of democracy. On the other hand, I sustain that the challenge is not about identity but democracy, and more particularly, about the role deliberative democracy is called to play when controversy challenges whether the people of a state do conform to a single people or not. More concretely, I explore the opportunities offered by the systemic turn to sustain a more realistic approach to deliberative democracy regarding its capacity to steer society towards integration in the context of the system of public deliberation.

show abstract

Overcoming the Institutional Deficit of Agonistic Democracy

Cited by 28 publications

References 31 publications

‘Beyond civil bounds’: The demos, political agency, subjectivation and democracy's boundary problem

‘Beyond civil bounds’: The demos, political agency, subjectivation and democracy's boundary problem

Agonistic peace agreements? Analytical tools and dilemmas

The constitutional paradox of complex diversity: A systemic path towards political integration through deliberation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About