Can agonism be institutionalised? Can institutions be agonised? Prospects for democratic design
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Author | Marie Paxton,Vivien Lowndes |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148118784756 |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118784756
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2018, Vol. 20(3) 693 –710
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1369148118784756
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Can agonism be
institutionalised? Can
institutions be agonised?
Prospects for democratic
design
Vivien Lowndes1 and Marie Paxton2
Abstract
One of the main criticisms of agonistic democracy (and of post-structuralism more generally) is
that it fails to get beyond a purely negative assessment of alternative theories. The article takes
up this challenge. First, it seeks to specify the core commitments of agonistic democracy, focusing
on the concepts of contestation, contingency and interdependence. Second, it analyses how
these commitments might be institutionalised through models of perfectionism, adversarialism
and inclusivism. Third, it considers how agonistic principles can suffuse broader processes of
democratic design, drawing on insights from critical institutionalism. The article argues that
agonism can become more than a thought experiment or critique. An agonistic design process
is possible. Such a process has five key characteristics: it is processual, collective, contextual,
contestable and always provisional.
Keywords
agonism, contestability, contingency, democratic design, institutionalism, pluralism
Agonistic democracy emphasises the constitutive, and potentially constructive, nature of
democratic contestation. This focus is driven by a suspicion that alternative models
of democracy, especially theories of deliberative democracy, are too wedded to the idea
of consensus (either as a precondition for or goal of democratic processes). One of the
main criticisms of agonism (and post-structuralism more generally) is that it is unable to
get beyond a negative critique of alternatives. This article aims to address agonism’s
‘institutional deficit’ (Schaap, 2009). We take issue with the argument that such a project
1School of Government and Society, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
2Department of Political Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Corresponding author:
Vivien Lowndes, School of Government and Society, University of Birmingham, Muirhead Tower, Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Email: v.b.lowndes@bham.ac.uk
784756BPI0010.1177/1369148118784756The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsLowndes and Paxton
research-article2018
Original Article
694 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20(3)
is oxymoronic, in that to institutionalise any particular set of values would be to render
them incontestable, thereby negating diversity (Wingenbach, 2011). We argue that ago-
nism has the potential to unlock the political puzzles that vex 21st-century democrats –
notably the rise of populism and fundamentalism – while also giving expression to actors’
underlying creativity and interdependency in the face of political disaffection.
The article starts by specifying three core commitments of agonistic democracy: con-
testation, contingency and interdependence. Next, we look at the ways in which such
concepts might be institutionalised through models of perfectionism, adversarialism and
inclusivism. While exploring the differences between these positions, we establish their
common commitment to a democratic contest that offers diverse citizens a means of iden-
tifying and accomplishing collective goals (in preference to a search for consensus and
‘universal values’). Acknowledging the progress that deliberative democracy has already
made in institutional design (Ackerman and Fishkin, 2004; Warren, 2007), we consider
the difficulties (theoretical and practical) involved in establishing agonistic ‘projects’ as
an add-on to conventional democratic processes. Such consideration leads us to flip the
question, how might institutions themselves be agonised? We argue that the real prize
may be in agonising processes of institutional design. The article explores the potential
for reconceptualising democratic institutions through an agonistic lens, drawing on
insights from, and contributing to, an emerging ‘critical institutionalism’ (Cleaver and De
Koning, 2015; Lowndes and Roberts, 2013). An agonistic design process has five key
characteristics: it is processual, collective, contextual, contestable and always
provisional.
Key tenets of agonistic democracy
Drawing on the ancient Greek concept ‘agon’ (contest or strife), agonists argue for a
‘return of the political’ (Mouffe, 2000) through the recognition, revival and renegotia-
tion of conflict. Agonists are committed to Nietzsche’s ‘spiritualisation of enmity’
through the democratic process, rather than the transcendence of conflict (Wenman,
2014: 40), perceiving contest as something to be celebrated. In ancient Greece, for
example, ostracism of dominant citizens was vital to ‘keep the agon open’ and ‘preserve
the health of the state’ (Honig, 1993: 71). Underpinning this aspiration is a set of core
philosophical commitments. Wenman (2014: 28) identifies an ‘agonistic matrix’ com-
prising a commitment to radical pluralism (where a diversity of values is constitutive,
rather than requiring resolution); a belief in a ‘tragic’ view of the world (derived from
Greek antiquity, where conflicts are intrinsic to the fabric of life, not something to be
transcended); and a conviction that conflict can be productive. Reflecting these commit-
ments, this article focuses upon three themes within agonistic theories – contestation,
contingency and interdependence.
Contestation
Following Schmitt’s (2008) concerns about the dangers of depoliticisation, agonists pro-
mote contestation in order to prevent democratic apathy, keep citizens engaged in demo-
cratic processes and prevent them from turning towards non-democratic conflict. Mouffe
(2000: 7) argues that when there is a lack of contending political positions to represent
citizens, they may seek non-democratic forms of identification. She celebrates the growth
of ‘left populism’ in Latin America, the United States and Europe, seeing it as capable of
To continue reading
Request your trial