Economics Dictionary of Arguments

Home Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

 
Political polarization: Political polarization refers to the divergence of political attitudes to extreme, opposing ends. It involves the separation of individuals or groups into distinct, antagonistic factions, amplifying differences and reducing common ground, often resulting in heightened conflict and reduced willingness to compromise. See also Political Parties, Parliamentary system, Democracy, Society.
_____________
Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

 
Author Concept Summary/Quotes Sources

Steven Levitsky on Political Polarization - Dictionary of Arguments

Levitsky I 18
Political Polarization/Levitsky: The weakening of our democratic norms is rooted in an extreme polarization that has expanded beyond political differences of opinion to an existential conflict over race and culture. Efforts to achieve equal rights and opportunities in an increasingly diverse society have exacerbated this polarization and provoked insidious reactions(1). If the collapse of democracies in history teaches us anything, it is that extreme polarization can be fatal for democracies.
Levitsky I 136
Polarization can destroy democratic norms. When socioeconomic, ethnic or religious differences become extremely partisan, so that society splits into political camps whose worldviews are not only different but also mutually exclusive, tolerance and respect can hardly be sustained. Some polarizations are healthy and even necessary for democracy. Indeed, the history of Western European democracies teaches us that norms can endure even when parties are separated by significant ideological differences.
Levitsky I 147
As Democrats and Republicans learned to view each other as legitimate rivals, the polarization of the parties evaporated and was replaced by the kind of politics that would be typical of American democracy in the decades that followed(2).
Levitsky I 239
It was not until after 1965 that the United States became fully democratized(3). Paradoxically, however, this development led to a fundamental repositioning of the American electorate, which once again led to a deep polarization of our parties(4). This polarization, deeper than at any time since the end of the Reconstruction era, has triggered the looming wave of norm-breaking that is currently endangering our democracy.
Levitsky I 259
Politics/Levitsky/Ziblatt: Political leaders have two options in the face of extreme polarization.
A. On the one hand, they can accept the division of society, but counteract it through cooperation and compromise at the highest level. This is what politicians in Chile have done. As we have seen, the sharp conflict between Socialists and Christian Democrats in 1973 led to the destruction of Chilean democracy. In the years that followed, the relationship between the two parties was characterized by a deep mistrust that overshadowed their common goal of rejecting the Pinochet regime (5).
Levitsky I 261
B. The alternative to cooperation despite polarization is to overcome polarization. In the United States, political scientists have proposed a number of electoral reforms that can mitigate the hostility between the political camps: e.g. ending the manipulation of voting districts, open primaries, compulsory voting or alternative rules for congressional elections(6). >Polarization/US
, see >Norms/Levitksy/Ziblatt.


1. Robert Mickey/Steven Levitsky/Lucan Ahmad Way, »Is America Still Safe for Democracy?«, in: Foreign Affairs, Mai/Juni 2017, p. 20–29.
2. Nolan McCarty/Keith Poole/Howard Rosenthal, Polarized America. The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2008, p. 10.
3. Mickey, Paths out of Dixie.
4. Mickey/Levitsky/Way, »Is America Still Safe for Democracy?«, p. 20–29.
5. »Interview with President Ricardo Lagos«, in: Sergio Bitar/Abraham F. Lowenthal (Hg.), Democratic Transitions. Conversations with World Leaders, Baltimore 2015, p. 85.
6. Siehe beispielsweise Nathaniel Persily (ed.), Solutions to Political Polarization in: America, New York 2015.

_____________
Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments
The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Levitsky, Steven


Send Link

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  


Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z