Claude Lefort versus Pierre Manent on the “Political Form”

Both prominent political philosophers, Claude Lefort and Pierre Manent, have significantly contributed to our understanding of “the political form,” albeit from different perspectives and with distinct conceptual frameworks. Their works focus on the nature of political organization, democracy, and the state, but they do so in ways that reflect their unique intellectual backgrounds and concerns. A comparative analysis of their views on “the political form” reveals both convergences and divergences, particularly in conceptualizing the relationship between politics, society, and the state.

Lefort, a French philosopher deeply influenced by phenomenology and existentialism, views “the political form” as an inherently open and indeterminate space. For Lefort, the essence of democracy lies in its ability to maintain this indeterminacy by ensuring that power remains an “empty place.” In The Political Forms of Modern Society, Lefort describes modern democracy as refusing to allow any single entity or ideology to fully occupy the seat of power, thus preventing the crystallization of authority. He emphasizes that this openness is essential for a democratic society because it allows continuous debate, contestation, and the questioning of power. Democracy, for Lefort, thrives on the tension between unity and division, a dynamic necessary for preserving freedom and pluralism in society.

Pierre Manent, another French philosopher, offers a distinct perspective on “the political form,” rooted in classical political thought and Christian theology. In works such as Metamorphoses of the City, Manent delves into the concrete organization of political communities, particularly the nation-state. For Manent, the political form is not about the abstract contestation of power but about forming a stable, coherent political community. He sees the nation-state as the central political form of modernity, providing the necessary framework for collective self-government and shaping individuals’ identities and moral outlooks within a society. Manent is more skeptical than Lefort of radical indeterminacy, viewing it as a potential risk to political stability and the common good. In Manent’s view, the political form is about establishing a durable framework within which a shared moral and political life can flourish.

Lefort’s and Manent’s understandings of democracy and the political form differ fundamentally in how they view conflict. Lefort argues that conflict is intrinsic to the democratic political form. In his view, a democratic society must remain open to diverse perspectives and challenges to authority, and the perpetual contestation of power is not merely a symptom of democracy—it is essential to its functioning. Democracy, for Lefort, exists in a state of constant negotiation and redefinition, where the conflict serves as the means to prevent authoritarian closure. The open, indeterminate nature of democracy, as described in his Les Formes de L’Histoire, protects it from becoming tyrannical.

In contrast, Manent acknowledges the inevitability of conflict but is more focused on how political forms can channel this conflict into productive outcomes. For him, the nation-state serves as the structured space where conflicts can be resolved without jeopardizing the integrity of the political community. His book Democracy Without Nations? Outlines his argument that the weakening of the nation-state poses a risk to the coherence of political life, leading to fragmentation and a loss of common purpose. While Lefort champions a model of democracy where conflict remains open and unresolved, Manent seeks a political form that provides stability by balancing order with the presence of disagreement.

One of the key distinctions between the two philosophers is their view of the relationship between politics and society. For Lefort, politics is always in flux, with the political form functioning as a space for continuous re-negotiation. He sees the risk of totalitarianism as a byproduct of the collapse of this indeterminacy, where one group or ideology seizes control of power and eliminates the space for contestation. In his work on totalitarianism, Lefort describes how regimes like the Soviet Union attempted to close the “empty place” of power by fusing the state, society, and the individual into a single entity, thus eliminating the pluralism that democracy requires.

Manent, on the other hand, sees political forms as providing the necessary framework for social life to flourish. In his view, the nation-state is not simply a container for political activity but the foundation of political and social identity. Manent is concerned with the erosion of the nation-state in an increasingly globalized and individualistic world. In his essay “City, Empire, Church, Nation,” Manent traces the evolution of political forms from the ancient city-state to the modern nation-state, emphasizing how these forms have been central to the development of Western civilization. For Manent, the nation-state is the culmination of this historical process and must be preserved to maintain a shared moral and political life.

Another area of contrast between Lefort and Manent is their respective concerns with the crisis of modern democracy. In his examination of totalitarianism and democracy, Lefort is deeply concerned with the erosion of pluralism and the rise of authoritarian forms of governance. He argues that the loss of the “empty place” of power leads to the collapse of democratic contestation, creating a political form that seeks to eliminate difference. Lefort’s political theory is ultimately about protecting the openness and indeterminacy of democracy against the threat of totalitarian closure.

Manent, on the other hand, centers on the weakening of the nation-state and the rise of a fragmented, individualistic society. In A World Beyond Politics, He critiques the idea of a post-political world where global governance replaces the nation-state. He argues that without the nation-state framework, modern societies lose their ability to exercise collective self-government and sustain a common good. According to Manent, the result is a loss of political coherence and a drift towards technocracy and moral relativism. His essay “Birth of a Nation” explores how the modern political form, centered around the nation-state, is crucial to exercising self-government and preserving a collective purpose.

Despite these differences, both philosophers are deeply engaged with the question of how political forms respond to the challenges of modernity. Lefort’s concern with the dangers of totalitarianism is paralleled by Manent’s worry about the disintegration of the nation-state. Both see modern democracy as facing a profound crisis, though they diagnose it differently. For Lefort, the crisis stems from the threat of authoritarianism and the erosion of pluralism. At the same time, for Manent, it comes from weakening the political structures that sustain collective self-government.

Claude Lefort and Pierre Manent offer contrasting yet complementary views on “the political form.” Lefort emphasizes the openness and indeterminacy of democracy, arguing that a healthy political form requires constant contestation and pluralism. Manent, by contrast, stresses the importance of stable political structures, particularly the nation-state, as essential for preserving a shared moral order and ensuring the coherence of political life. Their differing views on conflict, stability, and the nation-state’s role reflect broader political theory debates about the balance between openness and order, pluralism and unity, in the organization of political life.

Ultimately, Lefort’s vision of democracy as a space for endless debate and questioning stands in contrast to Manent’s call for a more structured political form rooted in the historical and moral tradition of the nation-state. While Lefort highlights the importance of preserving the openness of political life, Manent focuses on the need for a stable framework within which political and social life can unfold. Their work continues to provide valuable insights into the challenges and possibilities of political organization in the modern world.

Works Cited

Lefort,  Claude.,  The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism (Boston, MA: MIT Press, 1986).

Lefort,  Claude.,  Les Formes de l’histoire. Essais d’anthropologie politique, (Gallimard, Paris, «Folio Essais», 2000).

Manent, Pierre., A World Beyond Politics? Marc A. Lepain, trans., (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006).

Manent, Pierre., Democracy Without Nations: The Fate of Self-Government in Europe Paul Seaton, trans., (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Instituts, 2007).

Manent, Pierre., “What is a nation” Intercollegiate Review, Fall 2007: 23-31

Manent, Pierre., “City, Empire, Church, Nation”. City Journal, Summer 2012. https://www.city-journal.org/article/city-empire-church-nation

Manent, Pierre., Metamorphoses of the City: On the Western Dynamic Marc A. Lepain, trans., (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013).

Manent, Pierre., “Birth of a nation” City Journal Winter 2013 https://www.city-journal.org/article/birth-of-the-nation