Chantal Mouffe guest lecture at the University of Helsinki

Heikki Patomäki, NIGD

Professor Chantal Mouffe´s (Westminster College London) lecture "Cosmopolitan Democracy or Multipolar World Order?" was based on a paper soon forthcoming in Redescriptions. Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History (former Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought). The lecture was held on Tuesday 25 May 2004 at Helsinki University

In the lecture, Professor Mouffe discussed the different proposals which are being made for reviving the old ideal of cosmopolitanism and examined if their advocates are right in asserting that, with the disappearance of the communist enemy, antagonisms are a thing of the past and that the opportunity now exists for a cosmopolitan democracy. She argued that the problems that we are facing today are the consequence of a unipolar world and that the best way to overcome them is not an illusory form of cosmopolitan governance but the establishment of a true pluralism through the establishment of a multipolar world order. This argument provoked a vivid debate. Although some praised Mouffe’s analysis, many – including the signer – criticized her reliance on Carl Schmitt.

Mouffe’s criticism of the Western underpinnings of the model of cosmopolitan democracy may well be to the point. However, her “alternative” – a return to pluralism-preserving balance of power among regional superpowers – stems directly from the problematic understanding of politics and power developed by Carl Schmitt, who is also known as an active participant in the politics and military organizations of the Nazi-regime of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. If pluralism has to be understood in terms of a sovereign deciding upon the identity of friends and enemies, plurality has in fact already become pathological and violence-prone (in the sense meant by many peace researchers). She defended her position by making the qualification that she is not arguing that Schmitt is the ultimate truth-teller of politics but merely a useful starting point for thinking about pluriverse and the nature of politics. However, many felt that this qualification did not go far enough. Would it not be possible to think about diversity and politics in terms more democratic and less pathological than those of Schmitt.