Chantal Mouffe’s Radical Democracy and Rodrigo Duterte’s Radical Politics: A Second Reply to Critics

Abstract

This paper responds to the critics of radical democracy in the Philippines. Critics say that I misused Chantal Mouffe’s ideas on the subject. It is their contention that I misinterpreted radicalism to mean as a radical break from liberalism. Critics also suggest that my position is narrowly focused on the conflict between President Duterte and the elites, ignoring ordinary people or the demos as the essence of radical democracy. I believe that the claims they make are erroneous. Duterte’s rise to power in 2016 was a reaction to elite politics in the country and the failures of EDSA People Power I. In both instances, the clamor for true reform or change came from the people themselves. Critics suggest that I failed to explicate the theory of Mouffe’s agonism, which is at the heart of her radical democracy project. Duterte’s conflict with the political elites in the country is a testament to the agonism or struggle in Philippine society. By dismantling elitism in the country, the consolidation of our democracy takes a “radical turn” and comes with the man who embodies the underrepresented voices in Philippine society. The point of the matter is that Duterte simply gave radical politics a substantive meaning. It is the same kind of radicalism that actually seeks a just, equal, and democratic way of life.