The objective of this Book is to show that conceptualizing democracy in terms of "agonism" bestaddresses the ills of post-democracy. I characterize post-democracy as a democratic order thathas all the trappings of democracy, including multi-party elections, but which has beenenmeshed in a particular discourse or discourses that have become hegemonic.

This has theeffect of effacing real political difference as though various political actors in a democratic ordermight be different in word and name, they converge on major policy points. To show agonisticdemocracy as the best conception, I compare and contrast it to deliberative democracy.

Briefly,deliberative democracy emphasizes rational argument and reaching consensus, whereas agonisticdemocracy valorizes fierce political conflict between competing hegemonic projects. I argue thatan emphasis on consensus does not address the specific nature of the post-democratic age, whilea valorization of fierce conflict ensures the facilitation of real political difference requisite for avibrant democratic politics.

Focusing on Chantal Mouffe's conception of agonistic democracy, Iidentify some limitations which I attempt to overcome, namely her insistence on a form ofconsensus by which fierce political conflict should be bounded in order to stabilize democraticconfrontations. I argue that it is possible to envision agonistic democracy in a purely proceduralway, without any such consensus.

Recognizing post-democracy to be a worrying reality incontemporary democratic societies, and the growing dissatisfaction with this situation, I believedemocracy requires serious re-examination. This Book does exactly that.

. .