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

Summary/Abstract: 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.

• Details
• Contents