La trayectoria del discurso de Podemos: del antagonismo al agonismo

This article explores the political identity of Podemos which, along with other political forces, has transformed the party system in Spain. Podemos emerged as a party that rejected the left–right axis, defining itself in terms of a polarity between those “from above” and those “from below”. In con...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Franzé, Javier
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6089211
Source:Revista española de ciencia política, ISSN 1575-6548, Nº 44, 2017, pags. 219-246
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
Summary: This article explores the political identity of Podemos which, along with other political forces, has transformed the party system in Spain. Podemos emerged as a party that rejected the left–right axis, defining itself in terms of a polarity between those “from above” and those “from below”. In contrast to other studies, it is here considered that political identity cannot be determined solely in relation to such a dichotomy, but it can be antagonistic, as conceptualized by Laclau, or agonistic, as seen by Mouffe’s. Antagonism implies a relation of enmity with the political order and, therefore, a contestation of the latter, whereas agonism involves an adversarial relation with the political order and, hence, its regeneration. Taking this distinction as key to understanding Podemos’s political identity, this article presents a discursive analysis of the “purple party”, from its origins up to October 2016. The aim is to examine, using criteria based on form rather than contents, whether Podemos sees the existing political order as an insurmountable obstacle to the success of its demands or, rather, a fertile ground to achieve them. In the concluding remarks, it is argued that around January 2015 the initial antagonistic relationship became an agonistic one. The increasing adjustment of the Podemos discourse to the existing political order should not be seen as a moderation but, rather, as a process of negotiation with sedimented meaning. And this is not incompatible with the quest for a new hegemony.