mouffe-agonism

“Envisaged from the point of view of “agonistic pluralism”, the aim of
democratic politics is to construct the “them” in such a way that it is
no longer perceived as an enemy to be destroyed, but an “adversary”,
i.e. somebody whose ideas we combat but whose right to defend those
ideas we do not put into question. This is the real meaning of liberal
democratic tolerance, which does not entail condoning ideas that we
oppose or being indifferent to standpoints that we disagree with, but
treating those who defend them as legitimate opponents. This category of
the “adversary” does not eliminate antagonism, though, and it should be
distinguished from the liberal notion of the competitor with which it is
sometimes identified. An adversary is an enemy, but a legitimate enemy,
one with whom we have some common ground because we have a shared
adhesion to the ethico-political principles of liberal democracy:
liberty and equality. But we disagree on the meaning and implementation
of those principles and such a disagreement is not one that could be
resolved through deliberation and rational discussion. Indeed, given the
ineradicable pluralism of value, there [33] is not rational resolution
of the conflict, hence its antagonistic dimension.  This does not mean
of course that adversaries can never cease to disagree but that does not
prove that antagonism has been eradicated. To accept the view of the
adversary is to undergo a radical change in political identity. It is
more a sort of conversion than a process of rational persuasion (in the
same way as Thomas Kuhn has argued that adherence to a new scientific
paradigm is a conversion). Compromises are, of course, also possible;
they are part and parcel of politics; but they should be seen as
temporary respites in an ongoing confrontation.”

Mouffe, Chantal. "Deliberative democracy or
agonistic pluralism." (2000): 17.