Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T14:59:58.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polarization and the Democratic System: Kinds, Reasons, and Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2024

Christian F. Rostbøll Open the ORCID record for Christian F. Rostbøll [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is widely agreed that the increased polarization many countries experience is bad for democracy. However, existing assessments of how polarization affects democracy operate with simplified understandings of both polarization and democracy. Bringing empirical studies and democratic theory into dialogue, I argue that polarization cannot be understood as a single phenomenon that can be evaluated in one way. Moreover, its different kinds affect different parts of the democratic system in distinct ways. First, we must distinguish between the degree of polarization in a given context and the different kinds of polarization at play. Second, we must consider whether people have good reasons for their polarizing behavior or whether it is entirely irrational. If people have good reasons for their polarizing behavior, the problem lies elsewhere than in polarization itself. Third, we must distinguish between the content of polarized opinions and the process of opinion formation. Both can be assessed with democratic criteria, but they raise different questions. Finally, for democratic evaluation it matters where polarization occurs and thus, we must differentiate between different sites of polarization: civil society, election campaigns, and legislatures. I recommend a systemic approach to assessing the democratic implication of polarization, which analyzes both the effects of polarization at different sites and on democracy as a composite whole.

Type
Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , First View , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almagro, Manuel. 2023. “Political Polarization: Radicalism and Immune Beliefs.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 49(3): 309–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APSA. 1950. “Part 1: The Need for Greater Party Responsibility.” American Political Science Review 44(3): 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arato, Andrew, and Cohen, Jean L.. 2022. Populism and Civil Society: The Challenge to Constitutional Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biezen, Ingrid Van, and Saward, Michael. 2008. “Democratic Theorists and Party Scholars: Why They Don’t Talk to Each Other, and Why They Should.” Perspectives on Politics 6(1): 21–35.Google Scholar
Caramani, Daniele. 2017. “Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government.” American Political Science Review 111(1): 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carothers, Thomas, and O’Donohue, Andrew, eds. 2019a. Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Carothers, Thomas, and O’Donohue, Andrew. 2019b. “Comparative Experiences and Insights.” In Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, eds. Carothers, Thomas and O’Donohue, Andrew, 257–286. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2018. “Human Life is Group Life: Deliberative Democracy for Realists.” Critical Review 30(1-2): 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 2019. “Populism and the Politics of Resentment.” Jus Cogens 1(1): 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jean, and Arato, Andrew. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Craiutu, Aurelian. 2017. Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Cramer, Katherine J. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1993 [1939]. “Creative Democracy: The Task Before Us.” In The Political Writings, ed. Morris, Debra and Shapiro, Ian, 240–245. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, Evans, John, and Bryson, Bethany. 1996. “Have American’s Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?” American Journal of Sociology 102(3): 690–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11:563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 2018. Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Gidron, Noam, and Hall, Peter A.. 2020. “Populism as a Problem of Social Integration.” Comparative Political Studies 53(7): 1027–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2005. “Sequencing Deliberative Moments.” Acta Politica 40(2): 182–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Matthew H., and Svolik, Milan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114(2): 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 2010. “The Mindsets of Political Compromise.” Perspectives on Politics 8(4): 1125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 2012. The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans Rehg, William. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Christopher, and Poole, Keith T.. 2014. “The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics.” Polity 46(3): 411–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana, and Aarøe, Lene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Lelkes, Yphtach, Levendusky, Matthew, Malhotra, Neil, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22:129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1996. “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary, 37–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landemore, Hélène. 2020. Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lepoutre, Maxime. 2018. “Rage Inside the Machine: Defending the Place of Anger in Democratic Speech.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 17(4): 398–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2010. “Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.” Political Behavior 32(1): 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. How Democracies Die: What History Reveals about our Future. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C., Mettler, Suzanne, and Roberts, Kenneth M.. 2022. “How Democracies Endure: The Challenges of Polarization and Sources of Resilience.” In Democratic Resilience: Can United States Withstand Rising Polarization? ed. Lieberman, Robert C., Mettler, Suzanne, and Roberts, Kenneth M., 3–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2015. “Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective.” Political Behavior 37(2): 331–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane, Bohman, James, Chambers, Simone, Christiano, Thomas, Fung, Archon, Parkinson, John, Thompson, Dennis F., and Warren, Mark E.. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems, ed. Parkinson, John and Mansbridge, Jane, 1– 26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2015. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59(1): 128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Simon Cabulae. 2018. “No Compromise on Racial Equality.” In Compromise and Disagreement in Contemporary Political Theory, ed. Rostbøll, Christian F. and Scavenius, Theresa, 34–49. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2019. Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, Jennifer, Rahman, Tahmina, and Somer, Murat. 2018. “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(2): 16–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2009. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2018. For a Left Populism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russel. 2010. “Can Deliberative Democracy be Partisan?” Critical Review 22(2-3): 129–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead, Russel. 2014. The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muirhead, Russell, and Rosenblum, Nancy L.. 2020. “The Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship: Catching Up.” Annual Review of Political Science 23:95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner 2016a. “Capitalism in One Family.” London Review of Books 38(23): 10–14.Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016b. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2018. “Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(19): E4330–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, David, and Smith, Graham. 2015. “Survey Article: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Systemic Turn.” Journal of Political Philosophy 23(2): 213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, Takis S. 2019. Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pildes, Richard. 2015. “How to Fix Our Polarized Politics? Strengthen Political Parties.” In Political Polarization in American Politics, ed. Hopkins, Daniel J. and Sides, John, 155–160. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2000. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth M. 2022. “Populism and Polarization in Comparative Perspective: Constitutive, Spatial and Institutional Dimensions.” Government and Opposition 57(4): 680–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. 2008. Deliberative Freedom: Deliberative Democracy as Critical Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. 2017. “Democratic Respect and Compromise.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20(5): 619–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. 2018. “Compromise and Toleration: Responding to Disagreement.” In Compromise and Disagreement in Contemporary Political Theory, ed. Rostbøll, Christian F. and Scavenius, Theresa, 17–33. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. 2021. “Second-Order Political Thinking: Compromise versus Populism.” Political Studies 69(3): 559–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. 2023. Democratic Respect: Populism, Resentment, and the Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2015. “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 2005. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2018. “Uncompromising Democracy.” In Compromise, ed. Knight, Jack, 167–185. Nomos LIX. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2018. “Paradoxes of Polarization: Democracy’s Inherent Division and the (Anti-) Populist Challenge.” American Behavioral Scientist 62(1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2009. Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. # Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1970. “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination.” Scientific American 223(5): 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John C.. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Austin, William G. and Worchel, Stephen, 33–47. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Talisse. Robert, B. 2019. Overdoing Democracy: Why We Must Put Politics in Its Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean. 2015. “Partisan Warfare Is the Problem.” In Political Polarization in American Politics, ed. Hopkins, Daniel J. and Sides, John, 11–15. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11:497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2019. Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vachudova, Milada Anna. 2019. “From Competition to Polarization in Central Europe: How Populists Change Party Systems and the European Union.” Polity 51(4): 689–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 111(1): 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 2001. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29(5): 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurn, Christopher F. 2022. “Populism, Polarization, and Misrecognition.” In Recognition: Its Theory and Practice, ed. Hirvonen, Onni and Koskinen, Heikki J., 131–149. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar