Polarization, Agonism and the Crisis of Democracy

This paper explores the potential of agonistic democratic theory to guide analyses of contemporary polarization tendencies. Two claims are defended. First, agonistic democratic theory offers suitable conceptual resources to determine why polarization is problematic for democracies. While Chantal Mouffe distinguishes between ‘enemies’ and ‘adversaries’ to describe the central goal of democratic politics, i.e. the transformation of antagonisms into agonisms, this distinction can also serve a diagnostic purpose: in circumstances characterized by affective polarization, the willingness of political opponents to treat each other as adversaries erodes. Second, an agonistic lens can open up perspectives for possibilities to overcome polarization. Agonists can outline institutional designs that would require political actors to comply with the rules of agonistic conflict processing. In addition, they can show what forms of dialogue might help heal polarized relationships, precisely because agonistic forms of dialogue aim at transforming the political relationships among opponents rather than at overcoming the underlying disagreement. The paper challenges perceptions of agonistic democracy as a theory that welcomes polarization and demonstrates how it can enrich critical engagements with at least certain forms of polarization prevalent today.