Understanding Democratic Conflicts: The failures of Agonistic Theory

Abstract

The Western societies possess a number of internal contradictions that 
generate uncertainties about the possibilities of consensual decision-making and 
social cohesion. Conversely, conflict has been a core element of democracy since 
time immemorial, but political theory has never focused on the diversity of 
political dispute, the way it functions or its dynamics. The objective of this 
research is to deepen our knowledge of democratic strife. This article critically 
reviews Mouffe's agonistic pluralism, it contrasts it with sociological conflict 
theory, and gives some initial ideas from which a theory of democratic conflicts 
should be developed. The work contributes to two areas of research: The paper 
shows that the agonistic pluralism just does not hold the water because it omits the 
mechanisms and consequences of conflict dynamics (group cohesion, intra-group 
conflicts, domination and escalation) and without analyzing all conflict 
interactions, it does not present a comprehensive theory of conflict. The adherents 
of agonistic pluralism should draw more attention in expounding the core idea of 
their theory. (2) This research would therefore consist of multidisciplinary 
investigation exploring how cognitive ideas interrelate with conflict interactions, 
employing conflict management techniques and implementing assessing 
procedural dynamics of conflicts to achieve a comprehensive grasp of democratic 
conflicts.