Political Polarization in Modern Democracies – Origins, Dynamics, and Consequences

Keynote speaker:

Kirk Hawkins, Professor, Brigham Young University

Speakers of the panel discussion:

• Catarina Leao – Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Sciences Po
• Murat Somer – Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Ozyegin University, Istanbul
• Natasha Wunsch – Professor, Université de Fribourg
• Moderator: Carlos Meléndez – Professor, Universidad Diego Portales (Chile); Post-doctoral Research Fellow, CEU Democracy Institute

Main takeaways:

• In his keynote speech, Kirk Hawkins explores the issue of political polarization in the US using examples such as Taylor Swift, Bud Light, and Penzeys Spices. He highlights how these instances reflect broader trends of polarization, particularly "affective polarization," where emotional reactions to opposing parties intensify, rather than just ideological differences. The speaker argues that while most Americans hold moderate views on many issues, feelings of animosity towards the other party have escalated over time.
• He emphasizes the negative impacts of polarization on personal relationships and policy-making, citing the difficulty in achieving consensus on important issues. Other negative effects could be an increase in crime, inflation or even violence. The speaker suggests that hatred, even towards extreme views, is detrimental and calls for more productive approaches to resolving polarization.
• The keynote highlights the need for effective communication and conflict resolution techniques rather than reinforcing divisions. The speaker advocates for methods such as active listening and respectful dialogue, sharing successful examples from political figures and organizations that have fostered understanding and cooperation across divides. Ultimately, he encourages a shift towards constructive engagement to address the challenges of polarization in society.
• The panellists discuss the rise of radical right-wing movements and caution against viewing them as entirely beneficial, as research shows that polarization often leads to democratic erosion. They argue that in deeply divided societies like the US, polarization can create a vicious cycle in which each side perceives the other as an existential threat, leading to drastic measures to retain power and undermining democratic principles.
• In discussing the complexities of polarization in relation to democracy, the speakers highlight both the potential benefits and drawbacks. While leaders may justify breaking rules for the perceived greater good, such as protecting abortion rights, this can ultimately compromise democratic integrity. However, in multi-party systems facing authoritarian threats, polarization can bring together opposition forces in defense of democracy.
• In the current age of social media, the rise of polarization, particularly in the US and France, has been attributed to declining attention spans. Younger generations, in particular, consume information in brief formats, leading to a focus on catchy, clickbait-style communication rather than substantive policy discussions. Studies show that even when individuals are aware of misinformation, it may not change their pre-existing beliefs, posing a challenge to political discourse, especially among younger voters.
• The historical roots of polarization, particularly in dictatorships and their legacies, highlight how the actions of dictators can fuel extremism in transitioning democracies. The lingering effects of dictatorships can make societies more susceptible to extremism even as democracies mature, emphasizing the importance of understanding the historical and contemporary factors that shape political behavior.
• Various topics are addressed, from definitions and impacts of polarization to the evolving landscape of political discourse in the face of societal challenges such as migration and climate change. Suggestions for addressing polarization through intermediaries such as NGOs, and political parties, as well as the distinction between transformative and defensive polarization, reflect the need for constructive engagement to effectively navigate complex political environments.
• Ultimately, a multifaceted approach involving grassroots movements and institutional actors is proposed to address the negative aspects of polarization while strengthening democratic resilience. The focus is on identifying triggers and developing tools for proactive measures to address harmful polarization, promoting a thoughtful analysis of the relationship between polarization and democracy for a healthier democratic process.