The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century Book

In The Democratic Paradox, Chantal Mouffe seeks to get to the heart of the liberal-democratic project. Rather than seeing liberal-democracy as a stable, unified historical project, Mouffe instead sees a contingent and often-contested alliance between two distinct historical projects: the democratic project (based on equality) and the liberal project (based on liberty). Writing in the 90s, Mouffe is especially critical of the "Third Way" and the acceptance by social-democratic parties of the hegemony of neoliberalism. This "consensus of the centre" and the foreclosure of a left alternative to neoliberalism has fueled, in Mouffe's eyes, the rise of far-right populist parties which threaten the very continuation of the liberal-democratic project. It's easy to see the parallels of this analysis with the current American political situation. As the Democratic Party has consistently failed to deliver substantive change for the working class and for people of colour, these populations became disillusioned with the democratic progress and did not vote for Hillary Clinton, allowing far-right populist Donald Trump to take power. In this her analysis seems prescient.

What is missing from Mouffe's analysis is, of course, class. Mouffe takes a post-Marxist perspective in The Democratic Paradox and, rather than expanding her analysis, instead marginalizes the impact of class on contemporary democracy. The hegemony of neoliberalism is not an isolated event but one that is deeply connected to the evolving structure of global capital accumulation. Instead of offering an anti-capitalist alternative to liberal-democracy, Mouffe seems primarily concerned with preserving liberal-democracy against far-right populism. Indeed, in the introduction, Mouffe states offhand: "We might have given up the idea of a radical alternative to the capitalist system, but ..." Hardly an inspiring message!

In the conclusion, Mouffe uses a Lacanian "ethics of the Real" which she sees as "particularly suited to a pluralist democracy." But does not the "ethics of the Real" denote something much more radical than simple pluralist democracy or a reinvigorated social-democratic politics? The Real threatens to rip apart the very symbolic order with its constitutive Law. In Alenka Zupančič's words, "In relation to the 'smooth course of events,' life as governed by the 'reality principle,' ethics always appears as something excessive, as a disturbing 'interruption.'"¹ This "ethics of the Real" allows us to think beyond the hegemony of liberal-democracy and to create a truly radical emancipatory politics.

¹ Zupančič - "Introduction," in Ethics of the Real