The basic principle of Radical Democracy, which is different from Liberal Democracy, is relevant here:<p>&gt; &quot;Radical democracy&quot; means &quot;the root of democracy.&quot; Laclau and Mouffe claim that liberal democracy and deliberative democracy, in their attempts to build consensus, oppress differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. In the world, in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus. Radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but is dependent on it.<p>(Wikipedia) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Radical_democracy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Radical_democracy</a><p>This article can be interpreted as evidence that radical democracy actually works and the root of democracy ought to be a diversity of minorities all advocating for things we could call their essential beliefs, and a healthy, free society is one in which on any given issue the majority is flexible enough to accommodate minorities that have stronger preferences.<p>That is, a prosperous, cohesive society isn&#x27;t one that tends  to homogeneity but is instead driven by its heterogeneity. Furthermore, a prosperous, cohesive society isn&#x27;t based on rigid principles, but flexibility and the ability to evolve its structures to accommodate more and more diverse groups.<p>Seems legit to me. Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence.