Citizens and Partisans
From Chantal Mouffe's democratic paradox to the brink of democratic collapse
“Deprived of the possibility of identifying with valuable conceptions of citizenship, many people are increasingly searching for other forms of collective identification, which can often put in jeopardy the civic bond that should unite a democratic political association.”
- Chantal Mouffe
The battleground between the left and right has been a defining feature of political thought since the French revolution, which gave us these terms. Those who favoured tradition sat on the right of the National Assembly, while those preferring reform sat on the left. Yet we seem to have forgotten that these divisions still referred to citizens who sat in the same building to talk together about how their nation state would be run. This historical conception of citizens who can collaborate despite their disagreements has been overrun by those who would enforce at any cost their own vision of how things must or must not be.
I find it exhausting that these contemporary partisans flatly refuse to explore disagreements on the grounds that “we cannot let them win”. ‘They’, after all, are our neighbours. I am thus weary of those who would denounce ‘leftists’ as if they were perpetual lunatics who were never worth listening to. But I am just as fatigued by those whose unwavering prejudice is that there are those who are right (i.e. whoever agrees with them), and beyond that is solely the ‘far right’. All these divisive symptoms of failed democracy are the miserable habits of partisans, and it doesn’t matter one jot if they are ‘left’ or ‘right’ while they cannot co-operate.
In the late twentieth century, the political philosopher Chantal Mouffe recognised a democratic paradox that emerged from the collision of two distinct political traditions. On one side, the liberal tradition with its commitment to the rule of law and the protections from government abuse secured by human rights. On the other, the democratic tradition of political equality and popular sovereignty (“We the people”). There is nothing inevitable, Mouffe suggests, in these having come together in the way they did - and historically, their union emerged from bitter struggles and disagreements.
The paradox of democracy comes about because the liberal tradition outstrips and outruns any conception of a nation: human rights are supposedly universal, after all. Conversely, the democratic tradition requires a ‘people’ who see themselves as united in a national project (the ‘we’ in ‘we the people’). In the late twentieth century, the bitter political conflict between political left and right was largely between these two opposing halves of the soul of liberal democracy. Both served an essential role. The left protected against the abuses of government and commercial power, while the right ensured that there was still a robust nation state within which such advocacy could be conducted.
What has happened since is beyond unexpected. The partisans of the new left abandoned human rights entirely in favour of more radical ideals - those Mouffe warns about in the opening quote, namely new forms of collective identification. This fostered a puritanical zeal for narrowly-conceived self-identification as the sole permissible framework for political action, while the racism and sexism within this intolerant tolerance became mandatory. Meanwhile, partisans of the new right steadily narrowed the concept of ‘we the people’ in their ever-growing hatred of this ideological hierarchy of victimhood. Fanatics within both factions have proven more than willing to burn down cities, censor the speech of whoever disagrees with them, and justify any savagery in a blind commitment to their own favoured causes.
We are witnessing the collapse of the notion of a citizen, those who strive for their own political goals while still appreciating the necessity of their adversaries being free to pursue different purposes. This image of democracy is somewhat akin to a sporting contest, where the desire to win is not as important as our commitment to the fairness of the competition. It is emblematic of our political catastrophe that this now sounds quaint in the face of those who would do anything to ensure the defeat of their hated enemies. The partisans - left or right scarcely matters! - are now well on their way to destroying civilisation. A narrow path of resistance remains where we reject partisanship and instead unite in recovering the shared ideals of citizens. Our one hope is that there are still enough of us remaining to sustain a political discourse where dissent is not merely permitted, but defended as the vital lifeblood of democracy.
Thanks for this piece, Chris. I share your concerns and have written previously on the idea that we ought to have less fervour in our beliefs or there can be no dialogue. It's a tough balancing act and it looks like we're being called upon to seek this magical golden position or face utter destruction. I'm feeling pessimistic as the terms of compromise appear less and less feasible. "The blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold and overturned the order of the soul." - Leonard Cohen.