A guiding contention of this book has been that deliberative principles provide the most suitable framework for the expansion of relations of solidarity. In this chapter, I reflect on and defend this position in response to assertions that deliberative democracy is incompatible with solidarity due to its emphasis on the attainment of consensus.

Deliberative democracy, as we have noted, is a normative theory that provides criteria for collective action based on the generation of mutual convictions. It is easy to see how this focus on the attainment of mutually acceptable solutions can be both an expression and violation of solidarity. It can be an expression of solidarity insofar as decision making through mutual assent is an embodiment of collective freedom: by aspiring to win others’ support for a decision, one is respecting their autonomy, seeking to rule with them and not over them. But consensus can be a violation of solidarity insofar as the pursuit of consensus risks imposing unjust conformity pressures. Disputed values, beliefs and preferences can clash so intractably that they defy reconciliation under a single horizon of agreement. Parties pressured to arrive at a common position under such circumstances are parties pressured to give ground on their deepest commitments. This leads deliberations astray of solidarity's normative imperative that attentiveness is shown to the needs and interests of people different to us.

Some theorists have responded to the tension between consensus and democracy's pluralist aspirations with the conclusion that the former needs to be dispensed with in order to guarantee the latter. The most thorough articulation of this viewpoint in recent times has come from agonists. In their view, democracies need to uphold conflict as an end in itself, rather than strive for the closure of a consensus, as a domain of interaction devoid of an expectation of agreement best nurtures the open-endedness in human relations necessary to secure freedom and the integrity of diverse actors (see, for example, Mouffe 2000; Little 2003; Tully 2004; Schaap 2006). This perspective has emerged as highly influential. As Simone Chambers (2003: 321) concludes in a survey article, even deliberative theory, with its origins in an ideal of consensus, ‘has moved away from a consensus-centred teleology– contestation and indeed the agonistic side of democracy now have their place’.