The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies
Abstract
“Pernicious polarization” – the division of society into mutually distrustful Us versus Them camps in which political identity becomes a social identity – fosters autocratization by incentivizing citizens and political actors alike to endorse non-democratic action. An exploratory analysis of new V-Dem data on polarization indeed shows the negative relationship between the level of political polarization and liberal democracy ratings. How can pernicious polarization be avoided or reversed once present? By drawing on an endogenous explanation of polarization, where the decisions and actions of both opposition actors and incumbents contribute to its evolution, we focus on the question of what democratic opposition actors can do to stop or reverse pernicious polarization. Based on insights from examples across the world and deductive theory-building, along with illustrative cases, we offer a typology of potential opposition goals, strategies and tools, and then analyse how these may affect polarization and in turn democratic quality at early and late stages. We identify goals as either generative or preservative, and we argue that “active-depolarizing” and “transformative-repolarizing” strategies are more promising than “passive-depolarizing” and “reciprocal polarizing” strategies to improve a country's resilience to autocratizing pressures. The specific tools employed to pursue these goals and strategies are also crucial, though the effectiveness of available institutional accountability and mobilizational tools will change as the process of polarization advances. The emerging literatıres on opposition strategies to democratize electoral autocracies and to improve the resilience of democracies should incorporate their impact on polarization as a critical intervening variable.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that pernicious polarization fosters autocratization and uses V-Dem data to show polarization is negatively associated with liberal democracy, especially at sustained severe levels. It offers a typology of opposition goals and strategies, arguing that proactive transformative-repolarizing and active-depolarizing strategies are more promising than reactive reciprocal-polarizing or passive-depolarizing strategies.
Key findings
- In linear regressions with state and year fixed effects for 1900–2019, political polarization is negatively and statistically significantly associated with V-Dem liberal democracy at the analysis year and at one-, two-, and five-year lags: coefficients −0.420, −0.415, −0.391, and −0.305, respectively (p<0.01; N=6,192 for analysis year; 119 states).
- Periods of rapid polarization were not significantly more damaging to democratic quality than other periods of increased polarization. Sustained severe polarization was more damaging: difference coefficients were −0.640 at the analysis year and −0.654 at one-year lag (p<0.05), while elevated and heightened polarization showed no observable difference from all other cases.
- The paper’s typology links preservative goals to reactive reciprocal polarization or passive depolarization, and generative goals to proactive transformative repolarization or active depolarization. It expects reciprocal polarization to deepen pernicious polarization, passive depolarization to suspend elite polarization, and proactive strategies to reduce/contain polarization and slow or reverse autocratization if successful.
- Illustrative cases include South Korea’s 2014–2016 polarization spike and later democratic recovery, Turkey’s 2019 CHP active-depolarizing local campaigns, Hungary’s 2019 Budapest opposition win, and Venezuela’s 2015 opposition overreach after a super-majority win.
Methods
- Exploratory linear regression analyses with state and year fixed effects on 1900–2019, using V-Dem political polarization normalized to 0–1 and V-Dem liberal democracy scored 0–1; closed autocracies and states with fewer than 30 observation years were excluded, and polarization was lagged at 1, 2, and 5 years.
- Tests H1–H3: H1 increased polarization decreases liberal democracy; H2 increased rate of polarization disproportionately decreases it; H3 level of polarization disproportionately decreases it. Rapid polarization was coded as an increase of at least 10% (0.1 units) in 5 or fewer years, with two or more years of increase and no declines greater than 0.01. Elevated, Heightened, and Severe thresholds were 0.456, 0.566, and 0.722, each sustained at least five years with no declines greater than 0.01.
- The opposition-strategy framework is built deductively and illustrated with heuristic examples from across the world; the authors state this is not a systematic comparative case analysis.
Limitations
- The paper states the quantitative analysis is exploratory and the case examples are heuristic, selected to illustrate strategies and propositions rather than to offer systematic comparative case analysis. It also states it does not explain how and why oppositions choose one strategy over another, and that future research will examine different periods, specifically post-1975 and post-1994.
- The paper states the V-Dem polarization measure is imperfect and suffers weaknesses like other expert-opinion-survey measures, though it is described as the most appropriate available. It also states assumptions that the effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time, and it excludes closed autocracies and states with fewer than 30 observation years.
- Evident from the text: the quantitative findings are associational, not causal; the strategy typology and expected outcomes are not systematically tested; and the illustrative cases are selected, so they cannot establish the general effectiveness of the proposed opposition strategies.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
80 Own interpretation · 11 Own result · 10 Sources not found · 8 No basis given · 5 No full text of the sources · 4 Own method · 1 Partly supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Instead, such a successful cooptation strategy may simply strengthen the hegemonic leader, as happened for example multiple times in Kenya and Zimbabwe.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Incumbent strategies section (continuing on p. 253) describes Zimbabwe’s two episodes as a strategy of defanging the opposition through cooptation or power-sharing. The Institutional antecedents section says a power-sharing agreement left ZANU-PF dominant. Our copy does not substantiate the claimed repeated examples in Kenya, or explicitly say that cooptation strengthened the Zimbabwean leader. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The observed effect of polarization on liberal democracy is negative and statistically significant for each of the periods examined.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect on democratic quality remained negative and statistically significant for both groups, but the difference between the two was not statistically significant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For periods of both elevated and heightened polarization, there is no observable difference between the effect of polarization within these periods, and all other cases.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In line with our expectations, the effect of polarization on democratic quality is shown to be more damaging under periods of severe polarization, for the analysis year and single year lag, than all other periods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In none of these periods is there a statistically significant difference between polarizing periods lagged 2 or 5 years on democratic quality, so these results are excluded for ease of presentation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect on democratic quality remained negative and statistically significant for both groups”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An exploratory analysis of new V-Dem data on polarization indeed shows the negative relationship between the political polarization level of and liberal democracy ratings.”
- Also stated in: § Empirical Relationship between Polarization and Democratic Quality · p. 8 · plain
“The observed effect of polarization on liberal democracy is negative and statistically significant for each of the periods examined.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
- Also stated in: § Empirical Relationship between Polarization and Democratic Quality · p. 8 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this article, we present exploratory empirical analysis using new V-Dem data that supports our general proposition that polarization is associated with deterioration in democratic quality, including democratic elements of electoral authoritarian regimes”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A coup attempt, a general strike, a military sit-in, massive protests, and a legislative election boycott, along with the legal instrument of a recall referendum, all failed to unseat President Hugo Chavez early in his tenure.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] McCoy Jennifer, 2019, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 35
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The Budapest candidate ran and won on a platform of representing the people against the seat of power, a pro-Europe and green agenda, and a willingness to work in a partnership with the national government.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [49] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 2018 electoral victory section discusses Malaysia’s Pakatan Harapan campaign and manifesto, not a Budapest candidate. Searches for the Budapest candidate and the claimed pro-Europe, green, and national-government partnership platform found no passage addressing those points in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect appears to diminish in influence the further from the analysis year, but it remains substantial nonetheless.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
In the paper
“Instead, these elite failures fragmented the opposition and demoralized its supporters, while strengthening the incumbent's hold on power.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33] McCoy Jennifer, 2019, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally, the Turkish opposition parties have struggled to achieve some unity around a 'democracy-authoritarianism cleavage' and by coordinating their candidate selections.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The opposition CHP's campaigns in 2019 local elections represented a shift to active-depolarizing politics, and the first electoral victory for the opposition in more than a decade, with the partial exception of June 2015 elections.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Perhaps the most notable innovation was the CHP campaign manual called 'The Book of Radical Love'. The strategy was focused on defusing polarization through new and cross-cutting axes of politics, and responding to the politics of hate and resentment with 'love'.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that the crucial decision pro-democratic oppositions need to make is not merely to choose between engaging in or avoiding polarizing politics -- the former risks deepening the downward spiral and the latter risks demotivating or fragmenting opposition”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The specific tools employed to pursue these goals and strategies are also crucial. though the effectiveness of available institutional accountability and mobilizational tools will change as the process of polarization advances.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we acknowledge that polarization can be facilitated by exogenous factors such as economic, institutional, and informational environments, preexisting social-political cleavages, and historical memory.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, opposition resilience comprises not only their ability to choose the right strategies but also to cooperate around a common strategy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Polarization is thus always an intervening variable and strategies to reciprocate, avoid, reduce or transform it are choices for actors with consequences not only for the polarizing dynamics but for democracy itself.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Crucially, it captures 'the extent to which political differences affect social relationships beyond political discussions,' thereby encapsulating affective polarization that can turn pernicious.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Iyengar and Westwood. 'Fear and Loathing';
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Iyengar et al. 'Consequences of Affective Polarization.'
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, severe polarization changes actor incentives and even fosters internal transformations within both the incumbent and opposition groups in an authoritarian direction.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that some anti-authoritarian policies, even though ethically acceptable and feasible in early stages, will not be recommendable at later stages precisely because we expect them to reinforce polarization and thus backfire, or because they have already been disarmed by severe polarization.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We posit, however, that innovative tools and practices can overcome these risks.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An opposition can overreach, such as happened with the Venezuelan successful unity campaign in the 2015 National Assembly elections in which they won a super-majority.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, oppositions can 'de-fang' the power of the Us vs Them wedge magnified by the incumbent, reestablish the balance of power with would-be autocrats on a new axis, and mobilize a winning majority of the electorate on a democratizing agenda.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the expense of efficiency, the fixed effects approach is theoretically most appropriate as we are primarily concerned with the 'within' estimator for each country - the effect of polarization on democratic quality.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in contrast, providing a binary choice based on principles and policies, such as democracy vs authoritarianism, hope vs fear, justice vs impunity can open the tent to disaffected incumbent supporters while energizing opposition supporters around a positive vision of the future.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but if leaders do not address underlying grievances and cleavages, divisions are likely to resurge at some point in the future.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the more advanced stages of polarization and autocratization, the political challenge that democratic oppositions face may be to find the organizational and discursive ways to rebundle and redefine cleavages and politics along a new axis of polarization based on a pro-democratic program.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While imperfect and suffering from some weaknesses like any other measures constructed using expert opinion surveys, this measure is the most appropriate available capturing polarization both longitudinally and cross-sectionally, including states from the Global South, and can be commended for featuring large numbers of cross-checking and complementary questions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In line with their generative goals, proactive counter-polarization strategies seek to change the axis of polarization and thus also affect democratic outcomes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Refusing to vilify supporters of the polarizing incumbent, and countering the narrative rather than responding to personal insults or amplifying specific lies and disinformation can also help to defuse the Us vs. Them binary fueled by deliberate provocation and disinformation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mobilizing against the incumbent by vilifying the incumbent and their supporters based on their values, attitudes and identities may make people feel excluded based on socioeconomic or cultural background”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of passive depolarizing politics that aims to avoid polarization is that it may fail to mobilize the opposition's own base enough to defeat the incumbent in elections, and it demoralization, or apathy. Withdrawal from engagement, including election boycotts, is also may be seen as too soft and legitimizing the incumbent's divisive and antidemocratic behavior.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alternatively, successful extra-constitutional ousters of polarizing elected leaders may lead to outright democratic collapse, as happened when the military intervened to remove polarizing incumbents in Thailand in 2014 or Egypt in 2013, which may serve to depolarize society in the short-term, but at the cost of killing democracy.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The depolarization variety seeks to dismantle the reinforcing cleavages resulting from the simplified politics of Us vs. Them polarization, and actively seeks through social and political action to construct cross-cutting ties more amenable to pluralist democracy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or that supporters of the losing incumbent feel excluded and become alienated or engage in obstructionist politics.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once again, a proactive strategy can only succeed if supported by appropriate practices.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reactive polarizing politics, even to prevent democratic erosion, risks deepening polarization and moving to a pernicious equilibrium.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a minimum, pernicious polarization generates government paralysis and dysfunction.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If active depolarization is successful in the early stages of polarization, it may contain polarization at tolerable levels and even return a country to the cross-cutting ties of a pluralism”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Creating new alliances between social movement and civic resistance, and political parties and campaigns can reinforce a transformative campaign by providing a visionary platform of real change.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Alternatively, the incumbent may recognize the victory of the opposition as happened in the 2019 Istanbul and Budapest mayoral opposition upsets, but then prevent them from carrying out their innovative strategies, blocking the democratizing moment.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A spike of polarization, tested by H2 can often happen around election years, and is more likely to include cases of temporary polarization with neutral or potentially positive effects on democracy.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maduro reacted by suppressing the Assembly's authority through Supreme Court rulings, eventually usurping its authority almost completely as well as suppressing the legal-institutional mechanism of a recall referendum, moving the country to authoritarianism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actors pursuing a preservative goal can be expected to choose reactive counter-polarization strategies, while those pursuing a generative goal can be expected to choose proactive counter-polarization strategies.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Oppositions to polarizing and autocratizing incumbents seek to gain power.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Oppositions have different goals about using that power.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such strategies are unlikely to depolarize either society or politics in the long run, however, if the junior partner feels marginalized, democratizing agreements are not implemented or their supporters feel sold out.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Otherwise the logic of polarization will kick in again, including perceptions of the 'Other' as an existential threat and enemy to be eliminated, tempting both sides to violate democratic norms to gain or retain power.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and it may be seen as too soft and legitimizing the incumbent's divisive and antidemocratic behavior.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This Manichean discourse strengthens tribalism and affective polarization and the simplification of politics makes the two camps more rigid, with less communication and even less fluid movement between them.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The polarized perceptions of these institutions are thus the reverse of the context of still-independent institutions; now, autocratizing incumbents use loyal institutions to burnish their pseudo-democratic credentials in the eyes of their supporters and the world, while oppositions distrust such institutions and must be creative in devising their anti-authoritarian strategies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reciprocal counter-polarization responses in particular can backfire: they may mobilize the opposition's supporters but also cause the incumbent's supporters to close ranks to defend 'Ours against Theirs.'”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, democratic oppositions may sometimes have to respond through polarizing politics of their own, but they need to find a different axis of polarization based on a programme that can have democratizing consequences.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Hungary, a similar movement toward active depolarization strategies in the 2019 mayoral elections in Hungary may suggest a pattern of local level success and a learning process at work.”
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The polarizing variety seeks to change the axis of polarization away from the Manichean line emphasized by the polarizing incumbent and toward one that is more flexible and programmatic, such as those based on democratic or social justice principles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the effects of polarization may be delayed or otherwise manifest primarily around election years.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A related risk is that if a transformative repolarizing strategy proves successful, the winning coalition could be tempted to resort to the 'revanchist' and Manichean divisive discourse of pernicious polarization”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a failure will strengthen the polarizing incumbent's hand and demoralize the opposition, leaving the polarization dynamic with one 'pole' and likely resulting in further autocratization.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When active depolarization is successful at later stages of polarization and autocratization, it is likely to be first at the local or legislative level.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because we view polarization as an endogenous factor, we argue that agency and learning matter, and the willful strategic decisions and actions by both incumbents and oppositions will together shape the unfolding of the polarization process and its effect on a democracy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Polarization is an endogenous factor.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we posit that reactive counter-polarization strategies, often associated with preservative ideological-programmatic goals to restore the status quo ante , are most likely to deepen and entrench pernicious polarization, and in turn, to damage democratic quality.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We thus view transformative repolarization and active depolarization, contingent on contextual factors, as the most promising and democratizing strategies for opposition forces.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Examples such as the 2019 municipal elections in Istanbul and Budapest suggest that even seemingly unassailable incumbents concede when faced with well-organized oppositions and decisive defeat.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but if that cooperation is done on an unequal basis or fails to address underlying grievances, the outcome could actually strengthen the autocratizing incumbent or simply suspend polarization until it resurges in the future.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.
“We assume that the effect of polarization is consistent across groups and across time.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Oppositions to polarizing and autocratizing incumbents seek to gain power.
“We start by assuming that oppositions to polarizing and autocratizing incumbents seek to gain power”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Oppositions have different goals about using that power.
“but that they do so with different goals about using that power”
The paper relies on this without support.
Polarization is an endogenous factor.
“Because we view polarization as an endogenous factor”
The paper relies on this without support.
Polarizing politics is a common strategy of intentionally autocratizing actors.
“Particularly because polarizing politics is a common strategy of intentionally autocratizing actors”
Citations
Cites
The Logic of Political Survival
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4292.001.0001 · Cited by 4,217
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,603
Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America
Przeworski, A. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139172493 · Cited by 3,494
The Politics of Authoritarian Rule
Svolik, M. W. (2012) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139176040 · Cited by 2,611
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452
Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America
Chakravarty, S. P., & Przeworski, A. (1992) · Bulletin of Latin American Research · doi:10.2307/3338135 · Cited by 2,183
Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set
Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592714000851 · Cited by 1,567
A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?
Lührmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 · Cited by 1,528
Wickens, M. R., & Kmenta, J. (1972) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2552662 · Cited by 1,405
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764218759576 · Cited by 1,023
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Bandeira Luiza, 2019, Disinformation in Democracies: Strengthening Digital Resilience in Latin America
- Bates Robert H., 1998, Analytic Narratives
- Huntington Samuel P., 1991, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Later 20th Century
- Khadiagala Gilbert M., 2019, Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, 38
- Laebens, Melis G., and Anna Lührmann. "What Stops Democratic Erosion? The Role of Institutions of Accountability." Paper presented at “Berlin Democracy Conference,” Berlin. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/64508/1/gupea_2077_64508_1.pdf, 2019.
- Pantoulas Dimitris, 2019, Revista de Ciencias Políticas, 32, 391
- Selçuk Orçun, 2020, Democratization, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 221
Participation, Responsiveness, Interaction
Šoć, A. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003426103-4 · Cited by 2
Legitimising policy knowledge in autocratising contexts: the case of Hungary
Krizsán, A., & Dorottya, F. (2025) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/03055736y2024d000000061 · Cited by 6
Civil Society Resistance to Democratic Backsliding
Beissinger, M. R. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009602570.011 · Cited by 4
Kłodkowski, P., Kossowska, M., & Siewierska-Chmaj, A. (2025) · Social Inclusion · doi:10.17645/si.9996 · Cited by 2
“…demonstrated that while such tactics can be highly effective in mobilizing support, they also may deepen societal divisions, exacerbating different types of inequalities, enflaming identity‐based conflicts, and entrenching partisan hostility (Druckman, 2024; McCoy et al., 2018; Somer et al., 2023).”
Opponents, not enemies: disentangling the relationship between polarization and democracy in Europe
Muis, Q., Hendriks, F., & Reeskens, T. (2025) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2548904 · Cited by 1
Oposición en los márgenes: Estrategias contra la erosión de la democracia en Colombia y Venezuela
Gamboa, L. (2022) · Desafíos · doi:10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/desafios/a.11998 · Cited by 2
“A diferencia de dichas teorías y en línea con trabajos más recientes (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Somer et al., 2021; Cleary & Oztürk, 2020), presto atención a las decisiones de los actores políticos, incluso después de que un líder autoritario accede al poder.”
BackgroundComparing Governments and Political Institutions in Southeast Asia
Croissant, A. (2022) · Springer texts in political science and international relations · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05114-2_13 · Cited by 2
Old Autocracy or Something New?: Conceptualizing and Measuring Democratic Erosion and Overcoming ItPreprint
Somer, M., & Yilmaz, A. (2023) · doi:10.33774/apsa-2023-sshrp · Cited by 1
Self-citationvon Malmborg, F. (2024) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202405.0991.v1 · Cited by 1
Palacios Brihuega, I., Garrido Rubia, A., & Martínez Rodríguez, A. (2025) · Revista Internacional de Sociología · doi:10.3989/ris.2024.82.4.1304 · Cited by 2
Polarization and Populism in Latin America
Montero, A. P. (2024) · Latin American Politics and Society · doi:10.1017/lap.2024.12 · Cited by 1
“Regardless of the indicators used, quantitative or qualitative, there is a deep-seated consensus in the field that polarization has increased across political systems and that the intensity of polarization can challenge democracy (Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021).”
InfluentialTeehankee, J. C. (2025) · Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/01442872.2025.2511171 · Cited by 1
“…pernicious polarization – the dividing of society into mutually suspicious “us” against “them” groups in which political identification becomes a social identity – encourages autocratization by encouraging people and political actors to support non-democratic conduct (Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021).”
To polarize or not to polarize? Unveiling 2024 European election communication strategies
Mariotti, C., & Stanziano, A. (2025) · European Journal of Communication · doi:10.1177/02673231251388263 · Cited by 1
“The branch of pernicious polarization (McCoy and Somer, 2018; Somer et al., 2021) slipped into this debate in 2018, enriching it with its comparative approach.”
Deets, S. (2026) · Territory Politics Governance · doi:10.1080/21622671.2025.2600427 · Cited by 1
“…change, ‘reciprocal polarisation’ is a risky strategy both as it is difficult to achieve when the opposition is a broad coalition and it does not strengthen the democratic foundations that began eroding under neoliberalism even before the illiberal populists came to power (Somer et al., 2021).”
InfluentialBochev, V. (2026) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2026.2619457 · Cited by 1
Speaking apart: Rhetorical polarization in Turkey’s parliament, 2011–2023
Ünal, B. A., Körpe, M., & Gümrükçü, S. B. (2026) · Mediterranean Politics · doi:10.1080/13629395.2026.2626263 · Cited by 1
Szabó, A., Sebestyén, A., & Böcskei, B. (2026) · Post-Soviet Affairs · doi:10.1080/1060586x.2026.2652350 · Cited by 2
“…a durable, mutually hostile partisan divide – shows how antagonistic blocs undermine democratic accountability, weaken institutional checks, and normalise infringements of liberal principles (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018; McCoy and Murat 2024; McCoy and Somer 2019, 2021; Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021).”
Stanley, B. (2026) · East European Politics · doi:10.1080/21599165.2026.2656881 · Cited by 2
“…are vulnerable to subversion not because of disenchant-ment with liberal democracy itself, but because the partisan force of “pernicious polaris-ation” (Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021, 930) trumps respect for the system of rights and restraints through which that political system functions.”
Abandoning Democracy for the Nation
Milačić, F. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009734721 · Cited by 1
New Forms of Democratic Erosion in Latin America
Gamboa, L., & Schwartz, R. A. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009862486 · Cited by 1
Political polarization in low- and middle-income countries
Larreguy, H., & Tiburcio, E. (2026) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-026-02507-3 · Cited by 5
“…situations, polarization is associated with executive aggrandizement attempts 21 and radical institutional strategies, such as impeachment, or extra-institutional strategies to remove incumbents 22 , as it undermines long-term democratic bargaining and promotes short-term political opportunism.”
UNITED STATES, BRAZIL, POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC PUSHBACK. ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY?
Ferraris, N. (2023) · Il Politico · doi:10.4081/ilpolitico.2023.811 · Cited by 1
Susánszky, P., Kittel, B., & Kopper, Á. (2023) · International Journal of Comparative Sociology · doi:10.1177/00207152231187196 · Cited by 1
“Pernicious political polarization can turn political opponents into enemies and enhances democratic erosion (Somer et al., 2021), including the dismantling of solidarity and social empathy.”
BackgroundFactors Contributing to Extreme Polarization in Society: A case Study of Florida State, USA
Lelkes, B. H., Axelrod, S. T., & Lindberg, D. R. (2023) · Journal of Sociology Psychology & Religious Studies · doi:10.53819/81018102t5273 · Cited by 1
Ashariana, Suacana, I. W. G., Dahurandi, K., Hermansyah, M., & Hendarto, T. (2024) · International Journal of Science and Society · doi:10.54783/ijsoc.v6i1.1099 · Cited by 2
“This division refers to old and deep divisions, which emerged or have not yet been resolved, during reform or the formation of a nation-state which they call "formative rifts" (Somer et al., 2021).”
BackgroundUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana, S. A., & Palma, E. (2024) · Revista Elecciones · doi:10.53557/elecciones.2024.v23n27.03 · Cited by 1
“Por su parte, Somer et al. (2021) analizaron las estrategias opositoras y destacaron la polarización que caracteriza los procesos de autocratización, tomando distintos casos de estudio, en particular el caso turco.”
Weintraub, L. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76332-8_21 · Cited by 1
Reed, J. L. (2025) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-025-06012-x · Cited by 2
“…is among the most significant threats to the health and longevity of democracy (Arbatli & Rosenberg, 2021; McCoy & Somer, 2021; McCoy et al., 2018; Somer et al., 2021; Svolik, 2019) and it is on the rise in the United States (Gidron et al., 2020; Iyengar & Westwood, 2015; Iyengar et al., 2019;…”
Talking post-truth: elite rhetoric on democracy in Pakistan
Kuraishi, A. (2025) · Contemporary South Asia · doi:10.1080/09584935.2025.2494606 · Cited by 1
“The resulting situation is where the hegemonic truth discourse is threatened by opinions and emotionality, leading to extreme populist discourse and fuelling affective polarisation undermining democratic institutions (Orhan 2022; Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021).”
Does democratic backsliding depend on the policy issue? Evidence from a conjoint experiment
Christensen, H. S., & Saikkonen, I. A. L. (2025) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2025.2513302 · Cited by 1
“…it less likely that citizens will be willing to sacrifice democratic principles for policy gains on such issues than on socio-cultural issues that have been associated with group polarization in recent democratic backsliding cases (McCoy, Rahman, and Somer 2018; Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021).”
Díaz, Á. Á., González, L., & Nazareno, M. (2025) · Executive Politics and Governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93209-0_15 · Cited by 1
Paradoxes of populism in the pandemic and beyond : A commentary on Rogers Brubaker’s essay
Boda, Z. (2021) · Intersections · doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v7i3.933 · Cited by 1
Illiberalism, polarisation, resilience, and resistance
Zeller, M. C., & Vidra, Z. (2021) · Intersections · doi:10.17356/ieejsp.v7i4.945 · Cited by 1
Democracy to Dictatorship: Lessons from Turkey 2023 Presidential Election
Tuncer, A. M. (2023) · International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · doi:10.21275/sr23529121448 · Cited by 1
The Legacy of Christianity in the Far-Right Populists’ Nasty Culture War on Climate PoliticsPreprint
von Malmborg, F. (2025) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202505.1734.v1
von Malmborg, F. (2025) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202505.1734.v2 · Cited by 1
Online Supplementary Materials
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.002.0008
Boda, Z. (2021) · KDK Repository/Research Documentation Centre (Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences)
Milačić, F. (2022) · Societies and political orders in transition · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04822-7_3
Does Democratic Backsliding Depend on the Policy Issue? Evidence from a Conjoint ExperimentPreprint
Christensen, H. S., & Saikkonen, I. A. L. (2023) · SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/sx74n
da Fonseca, P. M. M., & Costa, A. L. V. (2023) · Revista Debates · doi:10.22456/1982-5269.130991 · Cited by 1
Unintentional Democratic Backsliders. “Evil Always Wins Through the Strength of its Splendid Dupes”
Zamęcki, Ł., & Szymański, A. (2023) · Polish Political Science Review · doi:10.2478/ppsr-2023-0003
Am Wendepunkt? Polarisierung in den USA und ihre Konsequenzen für die Innen- und Außenpolitik
Artz, J., & Akbulut, H. (2023) · Edition ZfAS · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-40568-7_3
Psychedelic therapies: The case for a new focus in the EU’s mental health care approach
Hawrot, T. (2023) · Open Access Government · doi:10.56367/oag-039-110-edit
Undemocratic Incumbents and the Shifting Electorate: Evidence from Polish ElectionsPreprint
Jacob, M. S. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4546342
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0007
Democracy, Elections, and Electoral Geography in Zambia
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0003
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.002.0010
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0008
Individual-Level Fear, Electoral Geography, and Political Participation in Zambia
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0005
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.002.0008
Democracy, Elections, and Electoral Geography in Malawi
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0006
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0009
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.002.0009
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0001
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0004
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.002.0006
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.005.0001
An Electoral Geography Theory of Campaign Violence
Wahman, M. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.003.0002
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198872825.002.0004
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.003.0006
Methodological Primer for the Expert Survey
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.005.0001
Dark Politicians, Populism, and Dark Campaigns
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.003.0002
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.002.0003
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.002.0005
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.002.0009
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.002.0007
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.003.0005
Can Dark Politicians Win Elections?
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.003.0003
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.003.0004
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.002.0006
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.005.0002
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.003.0001
Nai, A., & Maier, J. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197681756.005.0003
From Populist Promises to Democratic Threats: Brazil\'s Political Trajectory
Venturelli, G. L. (2023) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.8.2023.tde-01042024-114706
¿Cambio de régimen o cambio de gobierno?
Leyva, M. A. L. (2024) · Estudios Sociológicos de El Colegio de México · doi:10.24201/es.2024v42.e2555
Seeing Opposites: How Partisan Counter-Projection Fuels False PolarizationPreprint
Knowles, E. D., Mogami, M., & Yudkin, D. A. (2024) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/7kcnh
CSOs and the incomplete polarization of Czech society: civil society for what and for whom?
Frič, P. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1005668 · Cited by 1
Economic globalisation, relative power, and post-cold war democratisation
Liu, J. (2024) · Cambridge Review of International Affairs · doi:10.1080/09557571.2024.2382756
“…facilitated the determinants cited in traditional literature, such as political polarisation, populism, religious conflict and ethnic divisions, to deepen democratic crises under the increasing relative power (McCoy, Rahman, and Somer 2018; Robinson and Milne 2017; Somer, McCoy, and Luke 2021).”
Exploring Party Switching in East-Central European Legislatures
Antoszewski, A., & Żukiewicz, P. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003504450
Have attitudes toward democracy polarized in the U.S.?
Ejaz, H., & Thornton, J. R. (2024) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102854 · Cited by 1
Börzel, T. A., Risse, T., Anderson, S. B., & Garrison, J. A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198916444.003.0001
Affective Polarization and Consensus Building Among Parliamentary Elites
Sánchez-Ferrer, L., & Torcal, M. (2024) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642241285147 · Cited by 7
“…2019), is increasingly recognized as a critical concern in contemporary democracies due to its potential to undermine social cohesion (Torcal & Thomson, 2023); damage democracy (Somer et al., 2021) and its basic norms (Kingzette et al., 2021); and accelerate democratic backsliding (Orhan, 2022).”
Türkiye’de Duygusal Kutuplaşma ve Oy Verme İlişkisi
Çalışır, S. (2024) · Alternatif Politika · doi:10.53376/ap.2024.14
Fisher-Onar, N. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108976183.003
Hard Binaries and Their Discontents
Fisher-Onar, N. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108976183.004
You Must Be a Trump Supporter: Political Identity Projections on the Social Web
Mittal, S., Chawla, T., & KhudaBukhsh, A. R. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78541-2_24
Ferrín, M., & Kriesi, H. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198883319.003.0001
Moral Language and Political Polarisation: An Overview
Wang, S.-Y. N. (2025) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.70063 · Cited by 2
Electoral Resilience of Citizen Election Observers: A Case Study of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan
WAGNER, R. C. (2025) · Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy · doi:10.1089/elj.2024.0019 · Cited by 1
“Further studies have found that opposition coalitions and alliances against incumbents are more successful when they aim to create prodemocratic and antipo-larizing messages (Somer, McCoy, and Luke, 2021).”
Fuentes, G. M. (2025) · Anaquel de Estudios Árabes · doi:10.5209/anqe.102979
The Polarization Paradox: How State Wealth and Online Media Consumption Affect Polarization
Hunter, L. Y. (2025) · World Affairs · doi:10.1002/waf2.70019
When autocratization backfires: how overreach sparked mass resistance in Thailand and Bangladesh
Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2025) · Globalizations · doi:10.1080/14747731.2025.2565962
Li, P. F. J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06918-4_121-1
Deconstructing Hard, Unstable, Self-Serving Stalemates (HUSSS)
Vidaurri, M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10845-6_4
Milutinović, I., & Krstić, A. (2026) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia7010033
“…research has shown that the increase in disinformation and hate speech promotes the polarization of public discourse, which escalates to toxic levels in many countries, and “contributes to electoral victories of anti-pluralist leaders and the empowerment of their agendas” (Somer et al., 2021).”
Zaloznaya, M. (2026) · Sociology of Development · doi:10.1525/sod.2026.2834531 · Cited by 1
Hassan, H. A. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06918-4_133-1
Midiendo la democracia: una propuesta de Índice Multidimensional de Cambio Democrático (IMCD)
Freidenberg, F. D., & Gilas, K. M. (2026) · doi:10.22201/iis.rld.2026.2.16
Metadata
- Authors
- Somer, M., McCoy, J. L., & Luke, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Koç University (TR)
- Georgia State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McCoy, Jennifer L.
- Venue
- Democratization
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-01-12
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 929-948
- ISSN
- 1351-0347 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-890X
- OpenAlex
- W3120050906
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 50.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Democratization (publishedVersion)
- Digital Collections portal (Koç University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- autocratization, democratic opposition, opposition strategy, political polarization, liberal democracy, institutional accountability, mobilization, electoral autocracy, democratic resilience, political identity
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
