United we stand, divided we rule: how political polarization erodes democracy
Abstract
Although there is a broad consensus among political scientists that polarization is detrimental to democracy, very few empirically investigate the links between political polarization and democratic erosion. Most studies use diversity measures that fail to capture contemporary polarization, where the society is divided into two large hostile camps. In this article, we address the gap. Theoretically, we argue that polarization increases animosity between “enemy camps,” making voters more willing to accept anti-democratic measures against the rival group. This tacit approval becomes even more pronounced during election periods, where political controversy reigns and the stakes are higher. Focusing on a specific type of electoral manipulation, we hypothesize that ceteris paribus, political polarization is strongly associated with higher levels of government intimidation of the opposition. We expect this relationship to be stronger in democracies than in autocracies. Empirically, we create our own measure of political polarization based on Esteban and Ray’s widely accepted measure, and test our hypotheses on panel data. In addition to the regression analysis, we offer anecdotal evidence from Turkey, Hungary, and the United States.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Under severe affective or pernicious polarization, voters increasingly consider the opposing group illegitimate and an existential threat to their way of life.
“voters increasingly consider the opposing group illegitimate and an existential threat to their way of life (Arbatli & Rosenberg 2021).”
From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Arbatli & Rosenberg 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 62 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D.
- Affiliations
- National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
- Corresponding author
- Arbatli, Ekim
- Venue
- Democratization
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-10-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 285-307
- ISSN
- 1351-0347 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-890X
- OpenAlex
- W3089645204
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 15.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Democratization (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- political polarization, democratic backsliding, electoral manipulation, election period, Turkey, Hungary, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review