Agonizmus

Agonizmus, in political theory often referred to as agonism, is the view that political life is inherently structured by contest, antagonism, and unresolved differences. The term derives from the Greek agón, meaning contest or struggle, and in contemporary usage denotes a framework that treats conflict as a permanent and legitimate dimension of democracy rather than something to be eliminated.

The concept has roots in ancient ideas of competition and in modern critical theory. It gained prominence through the work of Chantal Mouffe and, alongside Ernesto Laclau, as part of a critique of purely deliberative or consensus-based models of politics. Mouffe’s notion of agonistic pluralism emphasizes that in a healthy democracy citizens should acknowledge genuine political opponents and organize public conflict through democratic institutions, rather than attempting to dissolve disagreement through consensus. The term agonism is often contrasted with neoliberal or liberal interventions that seek to suppress conflict in favor of empty consensus.

Core elements of agonism include the idea that political identities are forged through conflict, that adversaries are legitimate as long as they are treated as legitimate opponents rather than as enemies, and that democratic practice should channel rather than erase antagonism. Institutions such as open elections, pluralist civil society, and fair procedures are seen as the stage where competing claims are articulated, contested, and negotiated.

Critics argue that agonism may normalize polarization or justify obstructionism, while supporters contend that it provides a realistic framework for democratic pluralism by acknowledging irreducible differences. In practice, agonism informs debates about populism, constitutional design, and pluralist politics.