How do we break away from polarization?

Polarization has long been a structural feature of all democracies, but in recent years, it has transformed and become more extreme. Following the financial crisis, polarization was mainly ideological, with citizens clashing over political issues like bank bailouts, taxes, or public spending. But it has since evolved, creeping into daily life and shaping people’s preferences in areas seemingly unrelated to politics—like the sports they follow, their diets, the clothes they wear, or the neighborhoods they choose to live in.

This trend started in the United States. Ezra Klein, a journalist at The New York Times and one of the leading experts on polarization, describes this shift in terms of “macro-identities.” Being “left” or “right” no longer means holding certain political views or voting for a particular party; it now affects every aspect of life, including personal relationships, work, and consumer habits. Klein argues that if you know whether someone is vegetarian or which school their children attend, you can probably guess the rest of their opinions. We’ve become members of a monolithic bloc facing off against the others. And this reality is spreading to more countries.

“A certain degree of polarization is normal and even desirable,” says Yanina Welp, a researcher at the Graduate Institute in Geneva and member of the Scientific Council of the Elcano Royal Institute. Welp has studied polarization in Latin America, and in her latest book, The Will of the People: Populism and Citizen Participation in Latin America, she explains: “It becomes a problem when we experience extreme ideological polarization and affective polarization.” Affective polarization, she says, occurs when we no longer feel part of a broad society but rather a smaller, more insular community defined by an “us” versus “them” mentality. And that’s where we find ourselves today.

 

Is there a way to manage more effectively the natural conflicts that arise in a democracy? How can we rebuild consensus after a long period of disagreement?

 

Political scientists, marketing experts, and journalists are increasingly grasping the intricacies of polarization. At the same time, some politicians and media outlets continue to exploit it for votes or ratings. Now, the key questions are: how do we move past this? Is there a formula for resolving the conflicts inherent in democracy in a more controlled way? How can we rebuild consensus after such a long period of social and political strife?
 

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

 
There’s a consensus that this situation will persist for a while. But from there, opinions differ. “Civil society has launched initiatives that promote dialogue between people with opposing views,” says Welp. “These efforts are commendable and have some impact, but scaling them is difficult.” Many of these initiatives emphasize civic education, the rule of law, or the idea that, despite what the loudest voices claim, there are no simple solutions to complex issues like immigration or energy transition. However, most of these initiatives remain confined to small circles of people deeply concerned about the polarized climate and its effect on governance and the economy. They often fail to reach broader segments of the population.

Manuel Arias Maldonado, a political science professor at the University of Málaga and author of the newly published book (Post)Truth and Democracy, suggests that citizens may eventually tire of polarization and express their frustration by voting for alternative parties or reflecting it in opinion polls. “As newspaper readers or consumers, they might also punish organizations and individuals who intensify polarization,” he says. “But given the dominance of political parties, media outlets, and dogmatic citizens (who wield the most influence on social media), the likelihood of polarization’s more exaggerated forms persisting is quite high.”

One commonly suggested solution, endorsed by both scholars and some politicians, is to regulate social media and digital journalism to curb misinformation, which is often blamed for fueling polarization. Arias Maldonado, however, is skeptical of this approach—not just because it would challenge liberal democracy’s core principle of free speech but also because “governments are often the primary sources of misinformation,” he argues. In his book, he notes that society may be overestimating the impact of so-called “post-truth” on today’s political landscape.

“The challenges facing modern liberal democracies can be explained in many ways, and neither the devaluation of truth nor the impact of digitalization are necessarily the most decisive factors. Claiming that populist or authoritarian leaders are products of post-truth overlooks the fact that such leaders have existed in the past,” he writes. As a result, restricting misinformation may have little effect on polarization and could even backfire.
 

Some initiatives focus on teaching “depolarization” in schools, helping students acknowledge profound differences and learn how to confront and resolve them.

 

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

 
Perhaps the answer lies in long-term initiatives. Some programs focus on teaching “depolarization” in schools. One such initiative has been described by Kent Lenci, a U.S. teacher who believes schools shouldn’t aim to be apolitical entities but rather accept that strong disagreements exist and help students confront and resolve them. This could be achieved by teaching media literacy and socialemotional learning. Welp also highlights the role of education, though she acknowledges that it is part of the polarized debate. To help reduce polarization, education should emphasize “methods for understanding specific issues and developing responses” rather than focusing on content alone.

Yanna Krupnikov, a political scientist and professor of communication and media at the University of Michigan, has studied an interesting group: citizens who don’t obsessively follow the news or participate in social media political debates but still vote and occasionally switch parties. Krupnikov’s research suggests that a society less consumed by the latest headlines—often presented as infotainment—might be less polarized.

There are also strictly political solutions. For instance, political parties could abandon binary, zero-sum proposals—such as monarchy versus republic or independence versus unionism—and instead focus on issues that are more gradual and conducive to negotiation and technical discussions: How much should pensions increase? What’s the optimal income tax rate? Should all streets be pedestrianized, or just some?
 

Some political scientists argue that a society less fixated on the immediate present—often presented as infotainment—might be less polarized.

 
In conclusion, the solutions to our current levels of polarization are neither immediate nor infallible. As with many social issues, we must be prepared to experiment and occasionally fail. Perhaps the first step is to remind society that highly polarized countries tend to experience weaker socioeconomic performance than those with less division. Recognizing this might be an essential first step toward depolarization.