[2] This strategy is to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference.
[4] By building democracy around difference and dissent, oppressive power relations existing in societies are able to come to the forefront so that they can be challenged.
This type of radical democracy is in contrast with the agonistic perspective based on consensus and communicative means: there is a reflexive critical process of coming to the best solution.
[5] Habermas is aware of the fact that different cultures, world-views and ethics can lead to difficulties in the deliberative process.
[1] The community is seen as the pure constituted power instead of the deliberative rational individuals or the agonistic groups as in the first two strands.
As this agonistic perspective has been most influential in academic literature, it has been subject to most criticisms on the idea of radical democracy.
[16] For example, people might know what they want to see changing in their town and feel the urge to participate in the decision-making process of future local policy.
Habermas and Rawls have argued for radical deliberative democracy, where consensus and communicative means are at the root of politics.
[19] Since Laclau and Mouffe argued for a radical democracy, many other theorists and practitioners have adapted and changed the term.
[20] Paulo Freire's work, although initiated decades before Laclau and Mouffe, can also be read through similar lenses.
The internet is regarded as an important aspect of radical democracy, as it provides a means for communication which is central to every approach to the theory.
[27] Approached from the radical democracy theory, the expression of such views on the internet can be understood as online activism.