The following text is about political theory.
Agonistic democracy, developed by theorists like Chantal Mouffe, offers an alternative to deliberative democracy's emphasis on rational consensus. Mouffe argues that political conflict between adversaries with incompatible values is ineliminable and even desirable. Attempting to transcend conflict through rational dialogue can marginalize positions as "irrational" rather than legitimately different. Democratic politics should transform enemies—who must be destroyed—into adversaries—who are opposed but whose right to their position is respected. Conflict channeled through legitimate institutions becomes the basis of a vibrant democratic culture.
How does agonistic democracy differ from deliberative democracy?
It sees rational consensus as the goal of politics
It views persistent conflict between adversaries as legitimate and valuable
It attempts to eliminate all political disagreement
It considers all opposing views irrational
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Mouffe argues "political conflict between adversaries with incompatible values is ineliminable and even desirable"—conflict is legitimate and beneficial.
- Evidence: Ineliminable and desirable conflict; adversaries respected.
- Reasoning: Conflict is productive, not something to overcome.
- Conclusion: Legitimacy of persistent conflict is key difference.
Choice A is incorrect because this describes deliberative democracy. Choice C is incorrect because conflict is valued. Choice D is incorrect because positions should be respected as "legitimately different."