<![CDATA[This article discusses the model of agonistic pluralism democracy in the thought of Chantal Mouffe as an alternative for democratic development in Indonesia. The background of this study is based on the problems of democracy in Indonesia, which often experience setbacks, both during the New Order era and in contemporary democratic practices that tend to eliminate conflict through pseudo-consensus and accommodative politics. This condition reflects a contradiction between the normative principles of democracy equality and freedom and political practices that tend to be hegemonic and anti-pluralistic. This research employs a library research method by examining the main works of Chantal Mouffe and comparing them with the ideas of John Rawls on liberal democracy through the concept of overlapping consensus and Jürgen Habermas on deliberative democracy through communicative action and discourse theory. The findings show that both liberal democracy (Rawls) and deliberative democracy (Habermas) emphasize the importance of rational consensus in political life, but tend to ignore the inherent dimension of conflict in plural societies. Mouffe criticizes these approaches for attempting to eliminate political antagonism and replace it with an exclusive form of consensus. As an alternative, Mouffe proposes the model of agonistic pluralism democracy, which recognizes conflict as a constitutive element of democracy and transforms antagonism into agonism, namely a relationship between adversaries rather than enemies. In the context of Indonesia, this agonistic approach is relevant for encouraging a more substantive democracy by opening space for differences, strengthening opposition, and avoiding the domination of power that suppresses criticism. Therefore, democracy should not merely be understood as an electoral procedure, but as a dynamic arena that manages conflict constructively within the framework of equality and freedom.]]>
