How should the ‘liberal democratic mainstream’ be fortified (or recovered) so that its members can consolidate to defeat anti-democrats? I argue for a value-pluralistic orientation to liberal democratic politics that accomodates not just the good of conflict (championed by ‘democratic agonists’), but also the good of unity. This approach, I show, accommodates various forms of contestation, but also recognizes the need to purposefully cultivate unity, and thus can be said to balance a ‘tragic ethos’ with a ‘progressive patriotic ethos’: the (...) former encourages citizens to become more vigilant in the struggle against oppression, and the latter, to share in a sense of unity and to honour liberal democracy’s vital role in preventing tyranny. Such an approach would surely not be free of tension. However, I argue that it can help liberal democrats indeed consolidate and practice ‘fugitive antagonism’ against the enemies of liberal democracy when necessary. I advance my thesis by engaging in a critical conversation with the democratic agonistic tradition, paying special attention to Chantal Mouffe, William Connolly, and Steven Johnston’s visions of democratic politics. _Contemporary Political Theory_ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-022-00604-2. (shrink)

In an interdependent world of overlapping political memberships and identities, states and democratic citizens face difficult choices in responding to large-scale migration and the related question of who ought to have access to citizenship. In an influential attempt to provide a normative framework for a more just global order, The Law of Peoples , John Rawls is curiously silent regarding what his framework would mean for the politics of migration. In this piece, I consider the complications Rawls’s inattention to these (...) issues creates for his broader vision of global justice. Yet I also attempt to show how these aspects of Rawls’s theory emerge from an underlying tension which confronts all liberal democratic conceptions of justice, both in theory and in practice. In my conclusion, I sketch an alternative rooted in the insights of agonistic pluralism, which “breaks” the Rawlsian silence and actively theorizes the democratic legitimation of political borders. (shrink)

Este artigo considera a contribuição de Baruch Espinosa a uma teoria do poder constituinte. Teorias modernas do poder constituinte geralmente concordam em sua essência paradoxal: um poder que vem antes da lei e funda a lei é ao mesmo tempo um poder que, uma vez que a esfera jurídica é estabelecida, tem de ser obliterado pela lei. A ontologia de Espinosa tem sido reconhecida como uma das primeiras fontes modernas do poder constituinte, no entanto, ele argumenta por uma equivalência estrita (...) entre poder e lei. Este artigo defende que ao ler a teoria política de Espinosa através das lentes de uma imanência radical entre ontologia e história, podemos entendê-lo como uma fonte para a teoria do poder constituinte. Também defende que, através dessa imanência, o pensamento de Espinosa oferece uma solução para o paradoxo do poder constituinte e enriquece as discussões contemporâneas sobre a origem da esfera jurídica e a relação entre política e lei. (shrink)