DOES CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY DEMANDS AGONISM OR DELIBERATION?

Abstract

Contemporary democratic societies are characterized by two inescapable empirical phenomena: 1) The existence of deep, persistent and ineradicable political disagreements within each democratic society; 2) the need for political action courses common to all citizens (Waldron, 2005: 18). The aggregative democratic conception, receipted by most political constitutions, has shown some weaknesses to address this reality. In response, two rival democratic conceptions have emerged, namely: a) agonistic-pluralist; and b) deliberative-republican. This article aims to: 1) reconstruct the conceptual and normative assumptions of these two conceptions; 2) contrast them; and 3) outline arguments for a deliberative-republican democratic conception. The methodology used is the analytical political philosophy, namely: a) rational reconstruction of concepts; and b) reflective equilibrium. The present work aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about which is the best normative conception of democracy to adopt in non ideal contemporary normative conditions.