Toxic Polarization and Liberal Democracy
Polarization becomes a problem when politics transforms into conflicts between tribes with confronting ideas rather than into a dialogue among equals.
by Flavia Freidenberg, Lead Researcher at the Institute for Legal Research, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Polarization within societies is a good thing for democracy. It means that social, identity, and ideological differences are expressed within the political system (in public opinion, through social movements, in the media, or in political parties). They are not concealed, ignored, or silenced. Despite popular belief that polarization is inherently bad, the fact that citizen plurality can be freely expressed works as an antidote against authoritarianism. Differences are normal and, of course, they imply conflicts and politics must manage these differences democratically. Hence plain polarization, the one occurring naturally, means public opinion splits into opposite sides, and belonging, or identification, of an individual to a group necessarily involves the differentiation from another group.
At what point does polarization become a problem for liberal democracy? Polarization becomes a problem when politics transforms into conflicts between tribes with confronting ideas rather than into a dialogue among equals. When this occurs, plain polarization becomes toxic, leading to the simplification of politics into a binary division of society in mutually antagonistic fields. You are either with me or against me. Within this form of exchange, the management of differences is encouraged in an irreconcilable way; challenging the possibility that political liberalism’s values may take root (such as dialogue, and respect for differences); turning the adversary into an enemy (intolerance) and denying rivals’ legitimacy, annulling them and disowning their chance to become rightful subjects.
For the last decades, Latin America, as a region, has experienced important variations in political polarization levels. According to data from the project titled “Varieties of Democracy” (V-Dem), based on experts’ judgment within the international academic community, polarization - the one we label as toxic - has once again increased to early “third wave of democracy” levels. On a scale of 0 to 4, ranging from the idea that supporters of opposing visions will interact in a fundamentally friendly manner (0) to another one where they do so with hostility (4), average values for the 19 countries in the region were 2.85 (in 1978), decreasing to 1.75 (in 2001) and increasing to early recorded levels of 2.7 (2021). According to these results, it is more likely that adversaries will engage in confrontation among themselves and not want to participate in friendly interactions such as family reunions, civic associations, leisurely activities, or workplace engagements. We avoid talking about politics, lock ourselves up in a bubble, and distance ourselves from those who think differently than we do, even when they belong to our family or friends.
Data indicates that polarization deepened especially in 2021, although animosity levels began to increase from 2015 onwards. Most experts consulted by V-Dem mostly (36.84%) perceived supporters of opposing political fields interacted belligerently and that patterns of serious social polarization existed, expressing themselves in diverging points of view on nearly every fundamental political issue, resulting in important clashes of opinions (57.8% of experts). Therefore, given different viewpoints on problems, people will more likely quarrel irreconcilably.
In previous years, the level of toxic confrontation has increased significantly in most countries, yet the three cases stand out. Venezuela, where polarization levels have increased substantially since the onset of Chavismo. Where, in 1998, it was most likely that differences would be resolved amicably (0.98 on that same scale of 0 to 4), by 2017 and 2018 this situation was completely reversed (3.83). Argentina where, following 40 years of democracy, the latest data demonstrates a backsliding nearing the level witnessed in 1983 (3.7). Mexico, where polarization has also increased since it transitioned to democracy. Where in the year 2000 experts’ assessment reached a value of 1.91, by the year 2020 it had risen to 3.37, meaning those who defend opposing ideas will tend to interact in a hostile manner with each other.
When a society finds itself split up into antagonistic political fields, and no party has effective incentives to depolarize, democracy suffers. Occasionally, the political leadership - left or right-wing - fuels social confrontation, shrinking the available margins for consensus, shifting competition towards the extremes (in a centrifugal manner), and framing the story into a discourse that rejects the adversary’s right to think differently. In some cases, this is carried out by one segment of society, generating asymmetric polarization, as witnessed today in Europe’s new radical right wing (and presently in Argentina).
In this scenario, it is much more likely that those in government - as Jennifer McCoy argues in her text on populism and polarization - feel safer about their majorities (legislative, electoral) and search for mechanisms to improve their electoral advantage, concentrate power within the Executive, control autonomous institutions and even de-legitimize critics and opposition. This is why toxic polarization erodes democracies, because of the difficulties in identifying mechanisms of mutual understanding and making it the citizens’ responsibility to, through their voices and ballots, demand that their leaders restrain themselves, acknowledge and respect the plurality of ideas, visions, and interests present in society.
How to cite:
Freidenberg, Flavia (20 de agosto del 2024). Toxic Polarization and Liberal Democracy. Blog #LabData, Observatorio de Reformas Políticas en América Latina.