Populismo versus parlamentarismo: Hacia formas no antagónicas de política democrática

Abstract

This work joins the debate on the relation between the categories of antagonism and politics, as it tackles the question of whether politics is to be seen as intrinsically antagonistic, or we could speak of non-antagonistic forms of thinking and acting politically. In doing so, it critically engages with the argument of Laclau by revisiting his stance on the centrality of antagonism for politics, which is seen as a result of his conflation of populism with politics and the consequent difficulty to anticipate the possibility of a non-populist political logic. Against the backdrop of Laclau’s argument, this paper asks the question of whether there can exist a non-populist political logic, or a form of democratic politics which, together with populism, would be opposed to the apolitical forms of administration. Drawing on the intellectual project of Kari Palonen, this work portrays parliamentarism as a non-populist political logic based on a non-antagonistic form of the construction of the “people” as the democratic subject. Lastly, differentiating between the notions of democratic politics and politics of democracy, the paper ends by highlighting the contingent nature of the effect that populist and parliamentary forms of democratic politics have upon what is often constructed and perceived as the quality of democracy.