Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies

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 verify

  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)

  cites [49] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The effect appears to diminish in influence the further from the analysis year, but it remains substantial nonetheless.”

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 matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [33] McCoy Jennifer, 2019, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

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

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.”

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

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”

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“Hence, opposition resilience comprises not only their ability to choose the right strategies but also to cooperate around a common strategy.”

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.”

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 matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Iyengar and Westwood. 'Fear and Loathing';
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Iyengar et al. 'Consequences of Affective Polarization.'

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“We posit, however, that innovative tools and practices can overcome these risks.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“but if leaders do not address underlying grievances and cleavages, divisions are likely to resurge at some point in the future.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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

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”

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.”

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“or that supporters of the losing incumbent feel excluded and become alienated or engage in obstructionist politics.”

In the paper

“Once again, a proactive strategy can only succeed if supported by appropriate practices.”

In the paper

“Reactive polarizing politics, even to prevent democratic erosion, risks deepening polarization and moving to a pernicious equilibrium.”

In the paper

“At a minimum, pernicious polarization generates government paralysis and dysfunction.”

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”

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.”

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 matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [54]

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“and it may be seen as too soft and legitimizing the incumbent's divisive and antidemocratic behavior.”

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.”

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.”

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.'”

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.”

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“the effects of polarization may be delayed or otherwise manifest primarily around election years.”

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”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”