Tackling the Rising Threat of Polarization and Political Violence

As democratic societies grow more fragmented, the distance between individuals feels wider than ever, with profound consequences for trust, civil discourse, and even public safety. What implications does this increasing polarization have on the stability of democratic systems and the likelihood of political violence?

Through the Salzburg Global program on “Polarization and Violent Threats to Democratic Systems: Assessing the Threats and What We Can Do About Them,” experts came together to explore how political violence is affecting consolidated democracies, if it intersects with polarization and, crucially, what can be done to counteract its destructive effects. Their insights reveal that while the problem is complex, there are clear steps we can take toward reducing political violence and restoring democratic trust.

The Relationship Between Polarization and Political Violence

While polarization and political violence are often discussed together, many experts believe they are two distinct phenomena.

Polarization and political violence are considered “somewhat separate entities” by Clionadh Raleigh, president and founder of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data. She clarified the level of conflict may not always align with the level of polarization, as different political systems incentivize conflict in unique ways.

Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, agreed that the two phenomena are not directly correlated. Many democracies that have rising levels of political violence are not highly polarized, and strategies to reduce affective polarization do not always reduce political violence. Polarization can be understood in two distinct forms, according to Rachel. She said “ideological polarization is where people disagree about a policy outcome,” whereas “affective polarization is where people hate other groups of people, often across political parties”.

Andreas Schedler, senior research fellow at the Democracy Institute of the Central European University, highlighted how polarization fosters intolerance, which often acts as a “standing invitation for violence,” but that violence is not inevitable.

When political violence does emerge, however, one potential cause could be when one group perceives another as a threat.

Susan Benesch, founding director of the Dangerous Speech Project, suggested this fear can lead to violence if people lose faith in democratic discourse and no longer see a peaceful means of resolving grievances. She said, “Fear is the operative emotion in such a process, not hatred, since people are biologically disposed to react to fear with violence.”

Looking globally, Clionadh has observed that the “greatest increases in violence are happening in countries that have adopted many democratic institutions, if not are considered democracies, and countries of middle and high income.” She cited examples such as Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, and India.

Restoring Trust in Democracy

Polarization erodes trust, both in fellow citizens and in government institutions, which lies at the heart of democratic breakdown.

Andreas emphasized that polarization involves “the destruction of a basic democratic trust” and a diminishing belief that political actors will play by the rules. Rachel agreed, stating that “trust is the cornerstone of democracy, both trust in our fellow citizens and trust in our government”. She cited Bo Rothstein’s Quality of Governance Index, which found that once people feel fairly treated under the law, they trust their government more, which in turn fosters trust among citizens.

Susan offered a practical step for restoring trust - encouraging members of disillusioned groups to run for office. Seeing individuals from their communities in positions of power can restore faith in democratic institutions, signaling that the system is still responsive and inclusive.

The Role of Leaders

Political leaders and elites play a crucial role in either deepening or alleviating polarization. Andreas noted much of the blame for polarization lies not with individual citizens, but with political elites whose rhetoric fosters division. Pointing to examples from countries like the US, Mexico, and Brazil, he highlighted how specific political figures often drive polarization to extreme levels. However, if the polarizing figure leaves the political arena, it could “open the path towards a more reasonable, more conciliatory, less hostile pathway towards rebuilding democratic trust,” he explained.

Clionadh pointed to conflict driven by “elites investing in a violent society to promote themselves” as the most immediate threat to democracy. She noted that political violence is largely driven by political elites, their rhetoric, and what they perceive as the rewards for political power.

Susan described two forms of dangerous speech used by politicians and elites to incite violence, defining the concept of “dangerous speech” as a category of rhetoric that turns people violently against members of another group. Leaders use dehumanizing rhetoric to blame out-groups for societal problems, creating an environment where polarization leads to more aggressive acts and political violence becomes justified, Susan stated. Leaders can also draw analogies to violence considered righteous or acceptable within a given society, such as a founding revolution or protecting other members of the society.

Susan elaborated that “dangerous speech breaks down normal social barriers against violence in steps, making it seem first acceptable, then necessary, and then virtuous or even heroic.” This allows malevolent leaders to consolidate power by redirecting public frustration toward out-groups with minimal effort. As polarization isolates these groups, individuals are more likely to commit acts of political violence, following the leaders' encouragement.

On the other hand, leaders who promote non-violence, ensure equal outcomes, and address grievances play a key role in depolarizing societies, explained Rachel. She suggested that by “inviting citizens to depolarize themselves and have more trust,” leaders can help steer their countries away from hostility and violence.

Possible Steps Forward

To effectively combat political violence, we can focus on specific, actionable steps that promote unity and trust within our communities.

Rachel emphasized the most important are changes that “make the system seem fair” and that we also “need to have better leaders that people can vote for that are not going to amplify ideas that lead to violence.” She advocated for a balanced approach that combines holding people accountable through law enforcement and amplifying the voices of minority groups who are often the targets of violence, calling this a “winning strategy if politicians want to use it.”

Identifying law and order as one of the most effective counters to conflict, Clionadh elaborated that trust can be built “by no longer treating violence with impunity.” Although institutional reforms like term limits or increased inclusivity can improve democracy, Clionadh cautioned it “does not solve the conflict problem". She added, “The promotion of democracy is not the promotion of peaceful societies. Those two things are actually quite distinct.”

Andreas agreed “the very best remedy against any kind of violence is the rule of law and an effective justice system,” while acknowledging that building these systems is a complex process. He stressed this foundation must be in place before moral or educational solutions can take effect.

Civic dialogue was identified by Susan as a vital means of countering polarization. She elaborated, “To keep democracy, a critical mass of people who disagree must be able and willing to argue with each other.” She highlighted the power of counter speech, responses to hate speech and disinformation online, as “an opportunity and a ray of hope” for reducing polarization.

To prevent dangerous speech from leading to violence, Susan emphasized the importance of identifying vulnerable individuals and using influential figures to spread counter-messages while also strengthening the "movable middle" - those who may be swayed but do not condone violence.

Finally, Rachel discussed the need to match structural alterations to electoral incentives and rule of law activities with more cultural interventions. She suggested that a growing sense of loss of control is driving people, particularly young men, to seek control over others.

Rachel suggested that “helping, especially this younger generation, feel a sense of a locus of control within themselves and a sense that they have agency would moderate some of those impulses and help our young people engage with democracy.”

By combining efforts to create a fair political system, foster trust, hold perpetrators accountable, and engage in meaningful dialogue, democratic societies can work toward reducing political violence. If politicians engage in taking down the temperature, then depolarization could also follow.

Clionadh Raleigh, Rachel Kleinfeld, Andreas Schedler, and Susan Benesch attended the Salzburg Global program on “Polarization and Violent Threats to Democratic Systems: Assessing the Threats and What We Can do About Them” in September 2024.

The Polarization and Violent Threats to Democratic Systems project is developing an international, interdisciplinary network of researchers and stakeholders working on understanding and addressing rising polarization and political violence in a range of mature democratic systems. In addition, the project is defining a set of critical questions and objectives to inform and shape a new research agenda on the rise of polarization and political violence across selected countries.

Salzburg Global is grateful to the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation for their generous support and partnership that made this program possible.

‍