CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,023Political Theory and DemocracyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Conflict and Governance

Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities

McCoy, Jennifer, Rahman, Tahmina, Somer, Murat·2018·American Behavioral Scientist
DOI 10.1177/0002764218759576
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article argues that a common pattern and set of dynamics characterizes severe political and societal polarization in different contexts around the world, with pernicious consequences for democracy. Moving beyond the conventional conceptualization of polarization as ideological distance between political parties and candidates, we offer a conceptualization of polarization highlighting its inherently relational nature and its instrumental political use. Polarization is a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in a society increasingly align along a single dimension and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of “Us” versus “Them.” The politics and discourse of opposition and the social–psychological intergroup conflict dynamics produced by this alignment are a main source of the risks polarization generates for democracy, although we recognize that it can also produce opportunities for democracy. We argue that contemporary examples of polarization follow a frequent pattern whereby polarization is activated when major groups in society mobilize politically to achieve fundamental changes in structures, institutions, and power relations. Hence, newly constructed cleavages are appearing that underlie polarization and are not easily measured with the conventional Left–Right ideological scale. We identify three possible negative outcomes for democracy—“gridlock and careening,” “democratic erosion or collapse under new elites and do…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764218759576

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Severe divisions within societies can undermine democratic processes and subvert democratic accountability and thus increase corruption.

    “However, severe divisions within societies can also undermine democratic processes and subvert democratic accountability (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018;McCoy et al., 2018) and thus increase corruption.”

    From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as McCoy et al., 2018

  • Severe affective or pernicious polarization inflates animosity between opposing groups and the perceived stakes of political rivalry.

    “animosity between opposing groups and the perceived stakes of the political rivalry inflate”

    From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as McCoy et al., 2018

  • Intense conflict might arise when many possible differences of opinion reduce to a single 'us versus them' dimension.

    “Intense conflict might arise when many possible differences of opinion reduce to a single ‘us versus them’ dimension11.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

  • All of this parallels polarization trends in other regions, including Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.

    “All of this parallels polarization trends in other regions, including Europe338, the Middle East11, and Latin America11.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Polarization led parties in power to enact constitutional reforms to consolidate their power in Hungary, Turkey and Venezuela, whereas power grabs in the USA occurred through the violation of democratic norms and refusal to compromise.

    “For instance, polarization led parties in power to enact constitutional reforms to consolidate their power in Hungary, Turkey and Venezuela, whereas power grabs in the USA occurred through the violation of democratic norms and refusal to compromise11.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Abramowitz A., 2015, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association
  2. Aydın-Düzgit S., 2017, Turkey after the July 15th coup attempt: When elites polarize over polarization
  3. Corporate Social Responsibility Association of Turkey, 2016, Türkiye de Kutuplaşmanın Boyutları Araştırması
  4. Cristancho C., 2017, Paper Prepared for Workshop on Polarized Democracies
  5. 10.2307/2111549 · DOI
  6. Esen B., 2016, Third World Quarterly, 6597, 1
  7. García-Guadilla M., 2016, Memo prepared for Polarized Politics Workshop
  8. Lozada M., 2014, Papers on Social Representations, 23, 21.1
  9. McCoy J., 2016, Paper presented at the International Political Association Conference
  10. Pew Research Center. (2016). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/
  11. Sartori G., 1976, Party and party system
  12. Schmitt C., 1996, The concept of political
  13. Slater D., 2016, Memo prepared for Polarized Politics Workshop
  14. 10.1177/000271620157300107 · DOI
  15. Somer M., 2016, Memo prepared for Polarized Politics Workshop
  16. Stavrakakis Y., 2016, Memo presented at Polarized Politics Workshop
  17. Vegetti F., Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences
  18. Zechmeister E. J., 2015, The Latin American voter: Pursuing representation and accountability in challenging contexts, 195

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M.
Affiliations
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Koç University (TR)
Corresponding author
McCoy, Jennifer
ORCID
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-01
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
16-42
ISSN
  • 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3381
DOI
10.1177/0002764218759576
OpenAlex
W2792378751
Semantic Scholar
a1d993da220bf167ab7e229051a3ceac74edb42e
Cited by
1,023
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 188 · 2025: 207 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 142 · 2022: 130 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 20
FWCI
230.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
Funders
Georgia State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
political polarization, democratic backsliding, collapse of democracy, intergroup conflict, us versus them, political opposition, gridlock, authoritarianism, democratic reform, Hungary, United States, Turkey, Venezuela

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