The Maboloc - Mouffe Radical Democracy Debate
The Mouffe–Maboloc debate is philosophically important because it concerns a basic question: Can Rodrigo Duterte's politics legitimately be described as “radical democracy” in the Mouffean sense? My assessment is that Christopher Ryan Maboloc identifies a genuine democratic problem, but his original use of Mouffe stretches the concept of radical democracy beyond its strongest theoretical meaning. His later reply improves the argument considerably, but does not completely resolve the conceptual problem. 1. Mouffe's position For Chantal Mouffe, radical democracy does not mean simply rejecting liberal democracy or violently confronting elites. It involves radicalizing liberal democracy by pushing its commitments to liberty and equality further. Political conflict is unavoidable, but Mouffe distinguishes: Antagonism — conflict between enemies who seek each other's destruction. Agonism — conflict between legitimate adversaries who recognize each other's right to participate ...