Common allegiance to pluralist democratic principles is necessarily a conflictual consensus

Evidence

I agree with those who affirm that a pluralist democracy demands a certain amount of consensus and that it requires allegiance to the values which constirute its ‘ethico-political principles’. But since those ethico-political principles can only exist through many different and conRicting interpretations, such a consensus is bound to be a ‘conftiaual consensus’. This is indeed the privileged terrain of agonistic confrontation among adversaries. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 464

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the pivotal concept of ‘conflictual consensus’ that grounds her agonistic model.
• XREF: connects to: A workable pluralist democracy must acknowledge its constitutive inclusion-exclusion double movement. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 263; Democratic allegiance is secured through practices of persuasion, not arguments for universal validity — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 302; Agonistic pluralism rejects the ideal of a fully inclusive rational consensus — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 327 (+15 more)

Broader Connections

• Deliberative consensus theories wrongly deny pluralism’s constitutive conflict #corroborates (0.88) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 469
• Deliberative democracy eliminates pluralism to achieve consensus, leaving it unable to answer Schmitt #expands (0.82) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 225
• The incommensurability of universal and particular is the precondition for democracy #expands (0.80) — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 378
• Consensus is shaped and structured by unequal power rather than freely formed #complicates (0.78) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 919
• Pluralism inside the demos contradicts the homogeneity democracy requires #complicates (0.75) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 234
• Democratic legitimacy requires tacit constitutional consensus renewed each generation #qualifies (0.74) — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 66