The article presents the analysis of the relation between two concepts, namely cosmopolitan democracy and agonistic multipolar order, whose author is Chantal Mouffe, in the context of the dispute about the preferred shape of global democracy. Both approaches are presented in the literature as opposing. The main thesis of the present article is the possibility of connecting them, but according to dialectical principles. The point is not about a smooth consensus but about the fact that the contradictions between those views can be treated as a condition of their interweaving. To this aim, I use two theoretical concepts: of antagonistic cosmopolitanism by Tamara Caraus and of antagonistic global constitutionalism by Christof Royer. On this basis I claim that Mouffe’s rejection of cosmopolitanism is not thoroughly coherent with her own assumptions. I acknowledge her argumentation that cosmopolitan democracy might lead to pluralism without antagonism but at the same time I suggest that Mouffe’s postulate of the multipolar order can lead to pluralist antagonism without agonism. It is only the establishment of cosmopolitan institutions and rules that will allow for really agonistic and radically pluralized global politics, thanks to which it will be possible to solve the contemporary world problems effectively. For these reasons agonistic cosmopolitanism can be regarded as the most optimal variant of global democracy.