Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:29:27.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Uneasy Alliance between Consensus and Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2015

George Vasilev
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consensus both serves and threatens democratic inclusion. On the one hand it provides the means for individuals to will in common. On the other hand, it can impose assimilatory pressures that marginalize perspectives at odds with the prevailing point of view. Agonists have responded to this tension with a call to abandon consensus-oriented politics, contending an adversarial democracy more credibly advances inclusionary and egalitarian goals. I argue this wholesale rejection of consensus is unsustainable from the very pluralist perspective agonists wish to promote. In place of the view of consensus as an unattainable and undesirable absolute, I put forward an understanding of it as a matter of degree. I contend this understanding better captures the complexity of human relations and allows us to distinguish the potential accomplishments of consensus from its potential hazards.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , Winter 2015 , pp. 73 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bohman, James, “The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy,” Journal of Political Philosophy 6, no. 4 (1998): 401–2.Google Scholar

2 Chambers, Simone, “Deliberative Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science 6 (2003): 321.Google Scholar

3 Dryzek, John and Niemeyer, Simon, “Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals,” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (2006): 634–49.Google Scholar

4 Ober, Josiah, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 297.

5 Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Reconciling Pluralism,” 634.

6 Markell, Patchen, “Contesting Consensus: Rereading Habermas on the Public Sphere,” Constellations 3, no. 3 (1997): 380.Google Scholar

7 Habermas, Jürgen, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 7–10.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., 42.

9 Rawls, John, “The Idea of Public Reason,” in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. Bohman, James and Rehg, William (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997), 97.Google Scholar

10 Lijphart, Arend, “Consensus and Consensus Democracy: Cultural, Structural, Functional, and Rational-Choice Explanations,” Scandinavian Political Studies 21, no. 2 (1998): 105.Google Scholar

11 Ibid.

12 Sharples, R. W., “Plato on Democracy and Expertise,” Greece & Rome 41, no. 1 (1994): 51–52.Google Scholar

13 Moore, Alfred, “Deference in Numbers: Consensus, Dissent and Judgement in Mill's Account of Authority,” Political Studies, vol. 62, Issue Supplement S1 (2014): 8, doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12066.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 5–6.

15 Mouffe, Chantal, The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000)Google Scholar, 8.

16 Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology, trans. Spivak, Gayatri (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1976), 33–65.Google Scholar

17 Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 21.

18 Ibid., 33 (emphasis in the original).

19 Norval, Aletta J., “Hegemony after Deconstruction: The Consequences of Undecidability,” Journal of Ideologies 9, no. 2 (2004): 143.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., 144.

21 Laclau, Ernesto, Emancipation(s) (London: Verso, 1996)Google Scholar, 35.

22 Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 13.

23 Ibid., 13.

24 Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (Cambridge: Polity, 1992)Google Scholar, 209.

25 Habermas, Jürgen, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics, trans. Ciaran, Cronin P. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), 22–25Google Scholar, 50.

26 Abizadeh, Arash, “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Solidarity,” American Political Science Review 99, no. 1 (2005): 58.Google Scholar

27 Valentine, Jeremy, “The Hegemony of Hegemony,” History of the Human Sciences 14, no. 1 (2001): 90.Google Scholar

28 Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Reconciling Pluralism,” 637.

29 Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 55.

30 Ibid., 104.

31 Ibid., 102.

32 Ibid., 86. For a detailed analysis of how Mouffe and other agonists are reliant on consensus and foundational standpoints, despite criticizing liberal and deliberative theories for this, see Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Reconciling Pluralism,” 644; Knops, Andrew, “Debate: Agonism as Deliberation—on Mouffe's Theory of Democracy,” Journal of Political Philosophy 15, no. 1 (2007): 116–17Google Scholar; and Erman, Eva, “What Is Wrong with Agonistic Pluralism? Reflections on Conflict in Democratic Theory,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35, no. 9 (2009): 1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Schaap, Andrew, “Political Reconciliation through a Struggle for Recognition,” Social and Legal Studies 13, no. 4 (2004): 524CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 538.

34 Markell, “Contesting Consensus,” 390.

35 Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Reconciling Pluralism.”

36 Ibid., 638.

37 Ibid., 639–41.

38 Ibid., 642; Jones, Peter and O'Flynn, Ian, “Can a Compromise Be Fair?,” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 12, no. 2 (2013): 117Google Scholar, 128.

39 Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Reconciling Pluralism,” 642.

40 Johnston, Alastair Iain, Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980–2000 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, 25.

41 Ibid., 156.

42 Ibid., 25. Checkel, Jeffrey T., “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework,” International Organization 59(2005): 811.Google Scholar

43 Young, Iris Marion, Inclusion and Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar, 167.

44 Fishkin, James S. and Luskin, Robert C., “The Quest for Deliberative Democracy,” in Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association, ed. Saward, Michael (New York: Routledge, 2000), 19–20.Google Scholar

45 Zartman, William, Negotiation and Conflict: Essays on Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 2008).Google Scholar

46 Ibid., 68.

47 Ibid., 69.

48 Johnston, Social States, 16.

49 Dryzek, John, “Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia,” Political Theory 33, no. 2 (2005): 229.Google Scholar

50 Lijphart, Arend, “Consociational Democracy,” World Politics 21, no. 2 (1969): 207–25Google Scholar.

51 Dekker, Paul and Ester, Peter, “Depillarization, Deconfessionalization, and De-ideologization: Empirical Trends in Dutch Society 1958–1992,” Review of Religious Research 37, no. 4 (1996): 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Ibid., 338–39.

53 Ibid., 332.

54 Keating, Michael, “European Integration and the Nationalities Question,” Politics and Society 32, no. 3 (2004): 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Ibid., 369.

56 Diez, Thomas, Stetter, Stephan, and Albert, Mathias, introduction to The European Union and Border Conflicts, ed. Diez, Albert, and Stetter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, 4.

57 Ibid., 5.

58 Guibernau, Montserrat, The Identity of Nations (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), 50–57.Google Scholar

59 Ibid., 47–57.

60 Keating, “European Integration and the Nationalities Question,” 369–70.

61 Vachudova, Milada Anna, “EU Leverage and National Interests in the Balkans: The Puzzles of Enlargement Ten Years On,” Journal of Common Market Studies 52, no. 1 (2014): 122–38.Google Scholar

62 Fligstein, Neil, Euroclash: The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, 250.

63 Lears, T. J. Jackson, “The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possiblities,” American Historical Review 90, no. 3 (1985): 569.Google Scholar

64 Ibid., 571.

65 Habermas, Justification and Application, 31.

66 Edelman, Murray, The Politics of Misinformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, 48.

67 Lenard, Patti Tamara, “Deliberating Sincerely: A Reply to Warren,” Journal of Social Philosophy 39, no. 4 (2008): 630–31.Google Scholar

68 Edelman, The Politics of Misinformation, 58.

69 Dryzek and Niemeyer, “Reconciling Pluralism,” 646.

70 Miller, David, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 96–97.Google Scholar

71 Mansbridge, Jane et al. , “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy,” in Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, ed. Parkinson, John and Mansbridge, Jane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 19–21Google Scholar. See also Deveaux, Monique, “A Deliberative Approach to Conflicts of Culture,” Political Theory 31, no. 6 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Honneth, Axel, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge: Polity, 1995).Google Scholar

73 Ibid., 135–36.

74 Bourdieu, Pierre, Language and Symbolic Power (Cambridge: Polity, 1991).Google Scholar

75 Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition, 174.

76 Mansbridge et al., “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy,” 11–12.

77 Marquez, Xavier, “Spaces of Appearance and Spaces of Surveillance,” Polity 44, no. 1 (2012).Google Scholar

78 Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis, Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 84–85.Google Scholar

79 Bray, Daniel, Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: Representation and Leadership in Transnational Democracy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)Google Scholar, 161.

80 Gaus, Gerald F., “Reason, Justification, and Consensus,” in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar, 233 (emphasis in the original).