Democracy's Puzzling Paradox

How do we preserve government of the people, by the people, for the people, when its greatest threat is human nature?

Feature article from the Fall 2020 issue of Sacred Heart University Magazine

By Isil Akbulut-Gok, Ph.D.

America, most observers seem to agree, is a divided nation. Impassioned debate, of course, is fundamental to the structure of a healthy democracy, but the extent to which the country is currently polarized on seemingly every topic imaginable is in many people’s minds eclipsed only by the Civil War. According to a recent poll by the Georgetown Institute for Politics and Public Service, the average American voter believes the United States “is two-thirds of the way to the edge” of another such conflict.¹ It would seem at the moment that the only thing Americans can all agree on is that they can’t agree on anything.

The division is most starkly evident along partisan lines. That disagreement exists on topics such as racial equity and gender equality, the role of government and its reach, social issues, immi­gration, climate change, diplomacy and foreign policy—or that opposing camps would tend to­ward party preferences—is hardly new. Since the 1990s, however, the partisan divide has widened to a point of blatant discrimination so that, like Montagues and Capulets, it’s now the identity of the other (Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal) rather than their ideology that most inspires vilification.²,³ While Americans’ core val­ues and beliefs are surprisingly similar—human life is sacred, spread of diseases must be prevent­ed, livelihoods should be protected and so on— the focus on the opposition’s label enables either side to willfully dehumanize their political oppo­nents.⁴ Hillary Clinton, for example, famously called then-candidate Donald Trump’s support­ers a “basket of deplorables.” Less than a year lat­er, Eric Trump dismissed Democrats investigat­ing his father as “not even people.” At best, such demonizing and dehumanizing rhetoric shows a worrying lack of respect. At worst, it can be used to justify aggression and even violence.

There is no question: hyperpolarization in American politics has become troubling. We should not give up hope, however. For a start, while it may seem a low bar to point out that Americans feel they are “only” two-thirds of the way to catastrophic separation, the truth is there remains plenty of room to maneuver a course correction. We know this because there have indeed been times when Americans have been more polarized than they are today, and still the union has survived.

Additionally, it is worth noting that much of what we know about partisanship and polariza­tion draws upon surveys and studies that force individuals into dichotomous choices that fail to capture the complexity of how respondents actually feel.⁵ As such, the very structure of the survey exaggerates our divisions and overesti­mates political polarization. Even if Americans disagree politically, there is, in fact, more com­mon ground among them than such surveys are able to acknowledge or that politicians and the media, with sound bites, headlines and clickbait, like to portray.

That said, polarization is still real and dan­gerous. In democracies plagued by polarization (take Brazil, India, Poland, Hungary), the non­partisan stature of the judiciary and legislative processes is undermined. The legitimacy of elec­toral processes and political parties is questioned. Demonizing and divisive rhetoric, distrust and political retribution lead to democratic decay. And American democracy is far from immune.

Much like with cancer, the symptoms of polarization begin locally—the distrust, dehu­manization and delegitimization discussed above leading either to political gridlock or to winner-takes-all politics, making and unmaking policy with the swing of the electoral pendulum. Yet, however frustrating and exasperating such im­mediate effects may be, the greater concern is the metastasization that follows as such dysfunction becomes accepted as the norm.

Abroad as at home, the problem begins as a matter of perception. The 2018 Freedom in the World report by Freedom House, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization monitoring freedom worldwide and advocating for democracy and human rights, notes that the “abdication of the traditional U.S. role as the leading champion of democracy is of deep concern” and has serious long-term implications, particularly in the on­going struggle against authoritarianism.6 Many nations believe that America fails to live up to its values and ideals and no longer sets an example for them. The vacuum left by the United States is likely to be filled by authoritarian states like China and Russia to perpetuate illiberal values and practices, placing the survival of democracies in general in great jeopardy.

In addition to exacerbating the crisis of de­mocracy itself, hyperpolarization in American politics affects America’s ability to address global challenges and conduct foreign policy. As pol­itics and parties “become more ideologically distinct,” it is more likely to result in significant policy changes when one party replaces another. Thus the real danger is when “dramatic swings become the norm, so that other countries come to expect that promises and threats are only good for the near term.” ⁷ As international agreements are broken, allies and adversaries alike learn that American commitments may change with each administration. Partisan animus thus not only reduces the country’s ability to deliver on its promises, but erodes the trust necessary to even make such promises in the first place.

At each step, polarization weakens America’s position, both within and without. Allies are understandably compelled to develop indepen­dent foreign policies, in some instances pushing them even closer to rival nations like China and Russia. Volatility in American foreign policy can also be exploited by “adversarial nations.” Such nations may attempt to meddle in our politics to help candidates they favor get elect­ed, though it is more likely they would simply seek to perpetuate and amplify our own dys­functional chaos for their advantage. The return on investment, if you will, on the election of a candidate who may be replaced in a matter of years is not nearly as great as that of sown distrust for an entire system or nation whose reputation may take generations to rebuild.

What should we do to combat polarization and democratic decline in the United States? First and foremost, the current state of polariza­tion must be recognized for what it is: a disease in need of a concerted response and not the normal “cost of doing business” in a healthy democracy. Polarization is a threat to democracy, not a symp­tom of it. Furthermore, as noted above, one of the effects of partisan polarization is an increased susceptibility to further polarization and its ef­fects That is to say, polarization exponentially accelerates itself. As such, and given the potential consequences, polarization must be addressed di­rectly. Fortunately, solutions do exist—if we have the courage and humility to consider them.

One possibility is to encourage third parties and proportional representation in America. The United States is one of the few countries that has a two-party system. In a political construct where only two polarized parties represent sizeable por­tions of the population, democratic processes lead to a suboptimal “winner-takes-all” system that fails to address societal problems ⁸ and even­tually leads to an ineffective form of government. A growing number of people in winner-takes-all systems, such as America, feel that they cannot influence public policy, that their voice is not heard and that their vote does not make a dif­ference. As a result, they withdraw from politics. This is one of the reasons why America has one of the lowest voter turnout rates among other democracies. Proportional representation and multiparty systems, however, “instill greater ef­ficacy and political participation” and, in turn, increase voter turnout.⁹ A third party and pro­portional representation would not necessarily make America less polarized. It can help contain polarization, however, as it will make it harder for the extremes to dominate.¹⁰

Another possible solution is to make voting mandatory in the United States. Compulsory voting, as practiced in many advanced democ­racies such as Belgium and Australia, boosts elec­toral participation and voter turnout. Making voting mandatory in the United States would particularly benefit the populations that have been historically marginalized and excluded from the electoral process. It would offer a “so­ciety-wide message” that “there is no such thing as a political class in a democracy” and that each individual’s voice—and vote—is valued and ex­pected.¹¹ It would keep every group and class po­litically engaged and invested, which would, in turn, help restore trust in American democracy.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to us. “We the People” have a responsibility. We need to hold our leaders to account—not only when they are of the opposition but also, and perhaps especially, when they are of our own. This point cannot be stressed enough. Calling out the Oth­er has been proven to only further entrench our current divisions. It is imperative that we hon­estly and vocally hold our own selves and parties to the same standards we expect from the oppo­sition. We need to curb the spread of disinfor­mation and hateful posts, memes and speech by reporting them and getting them removed from social media. We need to return to the common goals at the heart of divisive issues and there cre­ate effective political coalitions that go beyond narrow partisan politics.

Finally, this November we must head to the polls. As Larry Diamond noted on the eve of the 2016 general election, “Democracies fail when people lose faith in them.”¹² The simple act of participation, of casting a vote in a free and fair election, may itself be the most important en­dorsement of the values of democracy. Then, with faith and patience, openness, respect and empathy, we can combat polarization and sew the country back together.

Isil Akbulut-Gok is an assistant professor of political science at Sacred Heart University. Her research and teaching interests include peacekeeping, intergovernmental organizations and Middle East politics.

1 The Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service Civility Poll. 2019.

2 Iyengar, S. et al. Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 76 No. 3 (2012), 408.

3 Mason, L. Ideologues Without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 82, Issue S1, 2018, Pages 866–887.

4 Cassese, E.C. Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics. Political Behavior (2019). https://doi. org/10.1007/s11109-019-09545-w; Martherus, J.L., Martinez, A.G., Piff, P.K. et al. Party Animals? Extreme Partisan Polarization and Dehumanization. Political Behavior (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11109-019-09559-4.

5 Pierre, J. “Why has America become so divided?” Psychology Today

6 Freedom in the World. 2018.

7 Schultz, K.A. Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy. The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3 (2017), p. 9.

8 Carothers, T. and A. O’Donohue (Eds). Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization. Brookings Institution Press; 2019.

9 Karp, J. and S. Banducci. Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2008): 311-338.

10 De-Wit, et al. “What Are the Solutions of Political Polarization?” Greater Good Magazine (2019).

11 Chapman, E. B., The Distinctive Value of Elections and the Case for Compulsory Voting. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 63, No. 1 (2019): 101-112.

12 Diamond, L. It Could Happen Here. Atlantic 2016.