Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies
Open accessAbstract
This article compares the dynamics of polarization in the eleven case studies analyzed in this special issue to draw conclusions about antecedents of severe political and societal polarization, the characteristics and mechanisms of such polarization, and consequences of severe polarization for democracy. We find that the emergence of pernicious polarization (when a society is split into mutually distrustful “Us vs. Them” camps) is not attributable to any specific underlying social or political cleavage nor any particular institutional make-up. Instead, pernicious polarization arises when political entrepreneurs pursue their political objectives by using polarizing strategies, such as mobilizing voters with divisive, demonizing discourse and exploiting existing grievances, and opposing political elites then reciprocate with similarly polarizing tactics or fail to develop effective nonpolarizing responses. We explain how the political construction of polarization around “formative rifts” (social or political rifts that arise during the fundamental formation/reformation of a nation-state), the relative capacity of opposing political blocs to mobilize voters versus relying on mechanisms such as courts or the military to constrain the executive, and the strategic and ideological aims of the polarizing actors contribute to the emergence of its pernicious form. We analyze the consequences for democracy and conclude with reflections on how to combat pernicious polarization.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Various forms of polarization, particularly affective polarization, tend to split societies into opposing camps and threaten democratic decision-making.
“By contrast, various forms of polarization (particularly affective polarization) tend to split societies into opposing camps and threaten democratic decision-making34,35.”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [34]
The “Polarizing Dynamics” section describes pernicious polarization dividing the electorate into two hostile camps, and “Consequences for Democracy” links growing affective polarization to threats to democracy. But the Abstract says polarization can also strengthen democracy; the paper does not say that various forms of polarization generally have the harmful tendency claimed. Page numbers are unavailable in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSuccessful cooptation may simply strengthen the hegemonic leader, as happened multiple times in Kenya and Zimbabwe.
“Instead, such a successful cooptation strategy may simply strengthen the hegemonic leader, as happened for example multiple times in Kenya and Zimbabwe.”
From Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 595
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democ- racy. New Haven, CT: yale university Press.
- Berman, Sheri. 2017. The pipe dream of undemocratic liberalism. Journal of Democracy 28 (3): 29-38.
- Bermeo, Nancy. 2016. On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy 27 (1): 5-19.
- Bermeo, Nancy Gina. 2003. Ordinary people in extraordinary times: The citizenry and the breakdown of democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press.
- Campbell, James E. 2016. Polarized: Making sense of a divided America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press.
- Druckman, James N., Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57-79.
- Handlin, Samuel. 2018. The logic of polarizing populism: State crises and polarization in South America. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 75-91.
- Hawkins, Kirk A., Ryan E. Carlin, Levente Littvay, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, eds. 2018. The idea- tional approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis. 1st ed. New york, Ny: Routledge.
- Inglehart, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2016. Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper, RWP16-026, Cambridge, MA.
- Kinder, Donald, and Cindy Kam. 2010. Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. Chicago, IL: university of Chicago Press.
- Kinder, Donald R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: university of Chicago Press.
- Kongkirati, Prajak. 2016b. Thailand's failed 2014 election: The anti-election movement, violence and democratic breakdown. Journal of Contemporary Asia 46 (3): 467-85.
- Kongkirati, Prajak. 2016c. Evolving power of provincial political families in Thailand: Dynastic power, party machine and ideological politics. South East Asia Research 24 (3): 386-406.
- Kuran, Timur. 1995. Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press.
- LeBas, Adrienne. 2006. Polarization as craft: Party formation and state violence in zimbabwe. Comparative Politics 38 (4): 419-38.
- LeBas, Adrienne. 2018. Can polarization be positive? Conflict and institutional development in Africa. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 59-74.
- Lee, frances E. 2016. Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. 1st ed. Chicago, IL: university of Chicago Press.
- Levin, Shana. 2004. Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology 25 (1): 31-48.
- Luce, Edward. 2018. The retreat of Western liberalism. Reprint edition. New york, Ny: Grove Press.
- Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2010. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. New york, Ny: Cambridge university Press.
- Mardin, S ¸erif. 1973. Center-periphery relations: A key to Turkish politics. Daedalus 102 (1): 169-90.
- McCoy, Jennifer, Tahmina Rahman, and Murat Somer. 2018. Polarization and the global crisis of democ- racy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 16-42.
- Mounk, yascha. 2018. The undemocratic dilemma. Journal of Democracy. Available from https://www .journalofdemocracy.org/article/undemocratic-dilemma.
- Mudde, Cas, and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2017. Populism: A very short introduction. 2nd ed. New york, Ny: Oxford university Press.
- Mutz, Diana C. 2018. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (19): E4330-39.
- North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New york, Ny: Cambridge university Press.
- Outten, H. Robert, Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, and Amber L. Garcia. 2012. feeling threatened about the future: Whites' emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (1): 14-25.
- Palonen, Emilia. 2009. Political polarisation and populism in contemporary Hungary. Parliamentary Affairs 62 (2): 318-34.
- Sidanius, Jim, and felicia Pratto. 2001. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
- Shils, Edward. 1961. Centre and periphery. In The logic of personal knowledge: Essays presented to Michael Polanyi, ed. Michael Polanyi, 117-30. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- Slater, Dan. 2013. Democratic careening. World Politics 65 (4): 729-63.
- Slater, Dan, and Aries A. Arugay. 2018. Polarizing figures: Executive power and institutional conflict in Asian democracies. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 92-106.
- Somer, Murat. 2001. Cascades of ethnic polarization: Lessons from yugoslavia. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 573:127-51.
- Somer, Murat. 2007. Moderate Islam and secularist opposition in Turkey: Implications for the world, Muslims and secular democracy. Third World Quarterly 28 (7): 1271-89.
- Somer, Murat. 2014. Moderation of religious and secular politics, a country's 'centre' and democratization. Democratization 21 (2): 244-67.
- Somer, Murat. 2017. Conquering versus democratizing the state: Political Islamists and fourth wave democratization in Turkey and Tunisia. Democratization 24 (6): 1025-43.
- Somer, Murat, and Jennifer McCoy. 2018. Déjà vu? Polarization and endangered democracies in the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 3-15.
- Stavrakakis, yannis. 2018. Paradoxes of polarization: Democracy's inherent division and the (anti-) populist challenge. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (1): 43-58.
- zaller, John R. 1994. Strategic politicians, public opinion, and the Gulf crisis. In Taken by storm: The media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War, 1st ed., eds. W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz, 250-74. Chicago, IL: university of Chicago Press.
- zsolt, Enyedi. 2005. The role of agency in cleavage formation. European Journal of Political Research 44 (5): 697-720.
- Authors
- McCoy, J., & Somer, M.
- Corresponding author
- McCoy, Jennifer
- Venue
- The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-12-20
- Volume
- 681
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 234-271
- ISSN
- 0002-7162 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3349
- OpenAlex
- W2905868634
- Cited by
- 595
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 128 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 121.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Keywords
- political polarization, democracy, political entrepreneurs, grievance politics, political mobilization, checks and balances, nation-state formation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review