Weerbare democratie: een antwoord op extremisme?

Democracy should be able to defend itself against forces which try to undermine the democratic order from within. This is the starting point of the debate about militant democracy, which has gained renewed impetus in the context of terrorist attacks and often religiously motivated radicalisation. On the basis of the work of Carl Schmitt and Chantal Mouffe, this paper questions whether existing conceptions of militant democracy (such as practiced in post war Germany) are really suitable to avoid processes of radicalisation. This argument is based on the analysis of a fundamental tension in Schmitt’s work between his analysis of the vulnerability of political order and the need for a guardian of the constitution on the one hand, and his argument that repressing conflict can intensify it “beyond the political” so as to lose control over its dynamics. This is fundamentally also the tension of militant democracy: in order to protect itself, it represses certain forms of conflict by taking away the venues where they can be channelled, which can actually reinforce forms of radicalisation. Whereas Schmitt defends a strong executive to depoliticise the domestic sphere, Chantal Mouffe takes the alternative route within the tension characterising Schmitt’s work. She strongly argues in favour of allowing and thereby de-intensifying conflict by turning antagonism into agonism, thus preventing processes of radicalisation.

Jaar van publicatie:2017

BOF-keylabel:ja

IOF-keylabel:ja

CSS-citation score:1

Authors from:Higher Education

Toegankelijkheid:Closed