Abstract
Theories of urban democracy that are relevant, critical and take sufficient account of the pervasiveness of power continue to pose challenges. Two theoretical frameworks dominate in relation to planning and democracy – Habermasian-inspired communicative planning theory and Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism. Both theoretical frames are typically held to be incommensurable because of fundamental ontological and epistemological differences and the debate between proponents of each tends to be polemic. Both theories have complementary strengths and weaknesses in terms of the insights they are capable of providing. Moreover, the realities of urban governance situations often display characteristics that can be explained in terms of both theoretical framings. This article negotiates a path beyond the polemic debate. It problematizes both theoretical frameworks and negotiates a way forward for planning theory that co-opts the principles of one into a theoretical framework that assumes the ontological position of the other. In so doing the article proposes a two-pronged approach that provides a critical, adaptive and reflexive approach to inquiring into spaces of urban democracy.