Article Summary
Introduction
The article studies how polarization can affect the emergence of undemocratic leaders and the decline of democracy. Drawing on multiple case studies from around the world, the authors seek to address two interrelated questions: How do societies become more polarized? And how does increased polarization affect democratic institutions? The authors argue that “pernicious” polarization emerges when political leaders seek to polarize society in order to garner political support. For instance, such leaders may create a divisive political discourse to mobilize voters in elections. While the fault lines of polarization differ from society to society, across all countries that experience heightened polarization, leaders appeal to group identities that are central to voters and that link voters to political leaders.
Analytical Approach
The authors draw their conclusions from a special issue that offers evidence from multiple countries that have witnessed increasing polarization and the deterioration of democratic quality, such as Turkey, Hungary, Zimbabwe, and the United States. Based on these case studies, the authors identify four dimensions along which polarization may occur. First, political elites may spark dissatisfaction with the way in which political representation works. Among other representational grievances, these refer to the claim that the governing elites do not represent the “will of the people,” which appeals to voters who believe that they are not adequately represented in the political process. Second, political elites may also leverage economic grievances in a given society, most commonly between affluent and poor citizens. Economic inequality allows political leaders to appeal to voters who feel “left behind” and can be mobilized by political forces that offer economic policies from which these electorates would benefit. Lastly, political elites can also begin catering to cultural grievances within a society, such as between religious and secular segments of the electorate. These grievances also include voters’ concerns over their status in society, which they may consider threatened through economic change or immigration. While each of these dimensions of polarization may emerge in a society, they all have in common that both demand and supply factors need to be present. On the demand side, there needs to be a grievance in society, be it representational, economic, or cultural. On the supply side, for polarization to become pervasive, political elites need to make these grievances more salient to voters’ lives so that they become a key motivating force in political preferences and behavior.
Main Findings
The authors find that the dimensions of polarization (representational, economic, and cultural) differ between countries. While these dimensions of polarization vary, two main factors drive the severity of democratic decline in these countries. First, when political leaders begin to leverage “formative rifts” to polarize society, pernicious polarization becomes more pronounced. By “formative rifts,” the authors refer to grievances that concern national identity and unresolved historical conflicts in society, such as racial inequality in the United States. The second factor that increases the negative effects of polarization on the decline of democracy is how opponents of a polarizing political force react to an increased divisive discourse. In cases where such opponents adopt polarizing strategies to mobilize against the other political force, the decay of democratic institutions becomes more likely. In contrast, pro-democracy mobilization and fostering civic engagement may result in less negative consequences for democratic stability.
Implications
The authors suggest that unless political actors take proactive steps to reduce polarization in society, democratic institutions can come under threat and deteriorate. If political leaders fail to implement depolarizing measures, polarization can become a persistent and enduring factor in democratic politics, leaving democracy vulnerable to authoritarian trends.
Questions left unanswered
The key question of how polarization can be prevented remains unaddressed in the article. How can representational, economic, and cultural grievances be mitigated so that politics becomes less affected by group identities? The authors point to the role of political elites in reducing polarization. However, it is important to note that in many cases, one political force initiates the polarization of society, and the question remains regarding how opposing political forces may react to an increasingly divisive discourse.
Methods and Analysis
Was the study and its analyses pre-registered?: No
Did the study rely on proxy variables to measure polarization?: N/A
Were standard p-value thresholds used (p<.05 or 95% Confidence Intervals that don’t overlap zero)?: NA
- Largest p-value presented as significant: NA
Were correlational results interpreted with causal language?: NA
Limitations / Weaknesses
While comparing multiple cases to examine the consequences of a polarized society for democratic institutions yields important insights into the dynamics of polarization, the authors select political systems that differ substantially in their levels of democratic consolidation prior to democratic decline. The cases range from the United States, a long-standing democracy, to Bangladesh and Egypt, two countries with considerably shorter democratic legacies. While polarization may occur in any society, regardless of its democratic experience, the extent to which such polarizing trends manifest in undemocratic institutional changes and how vulnerable democratic institutions are to such developments will differ significantly between these cases. This necessitates a more thorough consideration when making comparisons between these political systems.
Open Data & Analyses
Does the article make the replication data publicly available?: NA
Does the article make the replication analysis scripts publicly available?: NA
Article Citation
McCoy, J., & Somer, M. (2019). Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271.
Bibtex
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
@article{McCoy.2019,
author = {McCoy, Jennifer and Somer, Murat},
year = {2019},
title = {Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies},
pages = {234--271},
volume = {681},
number = {1},
journal = {Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science}
}