The Quest for Democracy Amid Polarization
https://pixabay.com/illustrations/me-you-selfish-contest-compare-1767683/
A spectre is haunting America and for once, it is not communism. However, no one seems to be doing something about it, not the Democrats, Republicans, or the independents. The reason is that they are the spectre that is destroying America and its democracy.
Political polarization is the threat haunting America. It is one of the primary challenges to democracy. Daniel Ziblatt explains that, contrary to healthy partisan polarisation, which ameliorates democracy, intense polarisation occurs “where political opponents begin to regard each other as existential enemies.” To undermine their existential enemies and ameliorate their democratic society, political opponents would even abuse democratic norms. He notes, “if citizens remain loyal to a political party even if it violates key democratic norms, political polarization represents a genuine threat to the functioning of democratic accountability.” So, this spectre haunting America is not formed by an evil third-party lurking in the shadows and performing devious schemes to undermine democracy. Rather, it is formed by the bravest and mightiest of those defenders desiring to ameliorate their democratic society, undermining their beloved democratic society in the process.
What is political polarization? In their survey, Varieties of Knowledge asked its survey takers to evaluate if society is polarized into antagonistic political camps. In clarification of their request, they explained that they referred to political differences and their effects on social relationships. In addition, a characteristic of high polarization is when: supporters of different political parties are reluctant to have friendly interactions. An alternative but the similar definition is given by the European Center for Populism Studies, which defines political polarization as the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Political polarization, because of its complexity, can be measured in various ways. In their essay, Affect, Not Ideology, Iyengar et al. explain two different methods. One way of measuring party polarization is by measuring the scope of variation within political views that are either based on policy or contemporary issues. The other form of measurement is “the extent to which partisans view each other as a disliked out-group.”
The United States of America currently stands at the apex of political polarisation.The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, maintaining their professionality, writes, “the United States is quite alone among the ranks of perniciously polarized democracies in terms of its wealth and democratic experience.” Furthermore, they offer, “none of the wealthy consolidated democracies (…) have faced similar levels of polarization for such an extended period.” The Carnegie Endowment does not convey the full extent of this situation’s grimness. Political partition is measured by Varieties of Knowledge on a scale of 0, “‘not at all,’ [where supporters] of opposing political camps generally interact in a friendly manner,” to 4, “‘yes, to a large extent,’ [where supporters] of opposing political camps generally interact in a hostile manner.” The United States shifted from 1.5 on the scale in 1950, to higher than 3.5 in 2020. On the other hand, the Carnegie Endowment’s second highest value in the category of “wealthy consolidated democracies” was Southern Europe, which decreased from 3.0 to lower than 2.5 in 2020. In addition, the Carnegie Endowment identifies two episodes of political polarization that came close to the United States’ situation. The first was a several-month-long political crisis which occurred in 1968 in France. The other was an Italian political crisis that lasted seven years but consequently ended up depolarizing from the dangerous American levels. America is unique in its endurance of political polarization. The Carnegie Endowment also maintains that “there are no peer analogues for the United States’ current political divisions, and the track record of all democracies does not provide much consolation.”
Robert Mickey et al., in 2017, 4 years before the capitol attack, wrote that President Trump’s election could produce a government which would abuse state power. In addition, they explained how a democratic society could be overhauled and how political polarization could affect it. Robert Mickey et al. identified three possible ways democratic backsliding could occur. First, the political state’s abuse of authority by unjustly utilizing them against their opposition. Using examples of what occurred in Venezuela, Robert Mickey et al. demonstrate how the police force could be politicized, obstructing justice and consequently affect democracy. Another is the “neutralizing of key parts of civil society.” With actions like bribery, “they attempt to co-opt, silence, or hobble groups that can mobilize [opposition].” The final way is reforming the ”constitution, the electoral system, or other institutions” to unbalance the playing field. In particular, the consequence of intense political polarization in the USA is its precise threat to democracy. Specifically in the USA, political polarization has special effects. One is the political gridlocks that positively correlate with polarization as “the part out of power determined to block the president’s legislative agenda.” However, when there is no opposition, there is consequently a lack of constraints on power. In addition, the radicalization of the Republican Party leads to a dismissal of the legitimacy of their opposition, thus encouraging their constituents to resort to extreme actions to “protect their democracy.” A worrying reality is that democratic backsliding is evidently possible under the justification of political partition.
The Carnegie Endowment also diverges on possible justifications as to why this polarization might be occurring in the first place. One, while multiracial and multicultural democracies exist, with some arguably having pernicious levels of polarization and others lacking such pernicious levels, the United States is the only one “experiencing a demographic shift that poses a threat to the white population that has historically been the dominant group in all arenas of power.” In respect to a democratic country, a majority of the population believing democracy is a threat can undermine it. Two, institutional characteristics of binary choice and strong minoritarian institution and representation. In the United States, there are only two options; hence it is easy to colour the other view as wrong. Thirdly, “three-decade-old partisan sorting.” Robert Mickey et al. argue that the reasoning for this partisan sorting is from the 1960 legal reforms, which extended voting rights to include people of colour.
The partisan attitude in the United States poses a significant threat to democracy. This realization can not be understated to take in a lesser way. The democratic changes America argues for is undermining democracy itself. Changes have to be made, a more accepting, welcoming attitude must be embraced for America to remain democratic. History has demonstrated the dangers of political polarization, and America can no longer ignore it.