El presente artículo tiene por objeto precisar la naturaleza del antagonismo que Mill reivindica a lo largo de su obra como uno de los remedios más eficaces a la hora de combatir el estancamiento político, intelectual y moral que amenaza a las sociedades modernas. El análisis se concentra principalmente en las notas de perpetuidad y sistematicidad que Mill le asigna y presenta al antagonismo como uno de los componentes del "liberalismo avanzado" al que él mismo decía suscribir.

The relationship between representative democracy and conflict in John Stuart Mill’s political philosophy has been interpreted in very different ways. While some scholars claim that Millian democracy is incompatible with political conflict, others identify in Mill a radical agonism that would offer a non-consensual model of deliberative democracy. This paper argues that neither of these views is accurate: although he highlights the centrality of conflict in political life, Mill believes that democratic deliberation presupposes a minimal level of consensus regarding the (...) formal value of the basic principles of democracy. Initially, I reconstruct the relationship between conflict and consensus in Mill’s conception of representative democracy. I then investigate his association of representation and advocacy and show that Mill’s encomium on political conflict was influenced by Guizot's work. Finally, I explain how a democratic debate riven with conflict is conducive to individual freedom. (shrink)