The objective of this Book is to show that conceptualizing democracy in terms of "agonism" best
addresses the ills of post-democracy. I characterize post-democracy as a democratic order that
has all the trappings of democracy, including multi-party elections, but which has been
enmeshed in a particular discourse or discourses that have become hegemonic. This has the
effect of effacing real political difference as though various political actors in a democratic order
might be different in word and name, they converge on major policy points. To show agonistic
democracy as the best conception, I compare and contrast it to deliberative democracy. Briefly,
deliberative democracy emphasizes rational argument and reaching consensus, whereas agonistic
democracy valorizes fierce political conflict between competing hegemonic projects. I argue that
an emphasis on consensus does not address the specific nature of the post-democratic age, while
a valorization of fierce conflict ensures the facilitation of real political difference requisite for a
vibrant democratic politics. Focusing on Chantal Mouffe's conception of agonistic democracy, I
identify some limitations which I attempt to overcome, namely her insistence on a form of
consensus by which fierce political conflict should be bounded in order to stabilize democratic
confrontations. I argue that it is possible to envision agonistic democracy in a purely procedural
way, without any such consensus. Recognizing post-democracy to be a worrying reality in
contemporary democratic societies, and the growing dissatisfaction with this situation, I believe
democracy requires serious re-examination. This Book does exactly that.
