Chantal Mouffe's article "Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism" examines the current debate on the nature of democracy, focusing on the two main versions of deliberative democracy: those proposed by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. While Mouffe agrees with both in their emphasis on developing a more comprehensive understanding of democracy than the 'aggregative' model, she argues that they fail to adequately address the main task of democracy. She criticizes their rationalist approach, which overlooks the crucial role of 'passions' and collective forms of identification in politics. Additionally, deliberative democrats tend to erase the tension between liberalism and democracy, failing to acknowledge the conflictual nature of democratic politics. Mouffe proposes that democratic theory should recognize the ineradicability of antagonism and the impossibility of achieving a fully inclusive rational consensus. She advocates for a model of democracy based on 'agonistic pluralism,' which aims to create democratic forms of identification that can mobilize passions towards democratic designs. This model emphasizes the importance of practices and language games, recognizing that power is constitutive of social relations. It challenges the ideal of a perfect harmony or transparency in democratic society, instead focusing on the constitution of forms of power that are more compatible with democratic values. Mouffe's critique of deliberative democracy and her proposal for agonistic pluralism offer a fresh perspective on how to address the challenges facing democratic politics today.Chantal Mouffe's article "Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism" examines the current debate on the nature of democracy, focusing on the two main versions of deliberative democracy: those proposed by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. While Mouffe agrees with both in their emphasis on developing a more comprehensive understanding of democracy than the 'aggregative' model, she argues that they fail to adequately address the main task of democracy. She criticizes their rationalist approach, which overlooks the crucial role of 'passions' and collective forms of identification in politics. Additionally, deliberative democrats tend to erase the tension between liberalism and democracy, failing to acknowledge the conflictual nature of democratic politics. Mouffe proposes that democratic theory should recognize the ineradicability of antagonism and the impossibility of achieving a fully inclusive rational consensus. She advocates for a model of democracy based on 'agonistic pluralism,' which aims to create democratic forms of identification that can mobilize passions towards democratic designs. This model emphasizes the importance of practices and language games, recognizing that power is constitutive of social relations. It challenges the ideal of a perfect harmony or transparency in democratic society, instead focusing on the constitution of forms of power that are more compatible with democratic values. Mouffe's critique of deliberative democracy and her proposal for agonistic pluralism offer a fresh perspective on how to address the challenges facing democratic politics today.