This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in 2021 at https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/wien/18175.pdf
An analysis of the last 30 years of democracy research leads to the conclusion that this period was very turbulent. It began with the triumph of liberal democracy as a form of the government and ended with the widespread thesis of a democratic recession, for which there are many indications: from the unprecedented rise of right-wing populism through the declining confidence of citizens in democratic institutions to the restriction of political and civil rights. What, however, makes the aforementioned dynamics troublesome is the fact that it affects both the "new" the "old" democracies. The political development in them have shown that political polarization, which is defined as the ideological distance between opposing political camps, is a crucial part of this disturbing trend. The technological facilitator of this development is the rise of social media. They have significantly facilitated the interaction between like-minded individuals in a bubble. In this context, however, it must be emphasized that not every form of polarization is harmful to democratic processes. A certain degree of polarization is not only normal, but also desirable, because it offers voters clear programmatic alternatives, which increases the interest in politics. A healthy polarization leads to more political debate and promotes political participation. To put it in simple terms, "democracy requires conflict, but not too much". The danger to democracy derives from a political dynamic in which a healthy polarization is transformed into a toxic one. Jennifer McCoy define this kind of polarization as "a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in the society increasingly align along a single dimension, differences become reinforcing, and people perceive and describe politics and society in terms of "us" versus "them". This type of polarization weaken respect for democratic norms, corrodes legislative processes, undermines the nonpartisan stature of the judiciary, fuels public disaffection with political parties, exacerbates intolerance and discrimination, diminishes societal trust, and increases violence throughout society. How the growing salience of identity politics in party competition will affect the democratic system depends on the attitudes and discourse of the leading politicians. The existence of identity issues in party competition does not automatically lead to toxic polarization. This depends on whether the politicians see the identity conflict as an opportunity to promote polarization for their own interests, so they can mobilize their own voters more successfully and weaken their opponents by portraying them as a threat. The key politicians represent different narratives that are mutually exclusive and thus non-negotiable. In this case one can not talk about the usual conflict between different policies, but rather between different world views. Political competition that is characterized by such a cleavage is dominated by a series of zero-sum conflicts, which are regarded as existential and have a winner-take-all logic. Once political elites and their followers no longer believe that opponents are legitimate and deserve equal respect, they become less likely to adhere to democratic rules. A brutalization of words leads to a brutalization of deeds. And once such resentments have been mobilized, they are difficult to control. As for the citizens level, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have argued in their bestselling book, "How Democracies Die", that since 1970s, democracies have rarely disappeared through armed coups, but have eroded more slowly through the subversion of elected officials. It is therefore of enormous importance that citizens curb the authoritarian ambitions of elected politicians. This precondition for the longevity of democracy does not exist in a political system characterized by toxic polarization. What we can observe is that due to tribalism, one characteristic of toxic polarization, a democracy of citizens has been replaced by a democracy of fans, which knows only loyalty and equates critical thinking with betrayal. Milan Svolik's study in which he reviewed several countries such as Turkey, Venezuela, and the USA, found that in such systems voters are prepared to trade off democratic principles for partisan interests. "When punishing a leader's authoritarian tendencies requires voting for a platform, party, or person that his supporters detest, many will find this too high a price to pay. Polarization thus presents aspiring authoritarians with a structural opportunity". Partisanship beats democratic standards. Many of them are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working. The negative consequences of polarization: institutional inefficiency, instability, political stalemate, paralysis, and reform backlog, have contributed that democracy is not capable of solving society's problems. Toxic polarization thus poses a serious threat to democracy. Some issues are more polarizing than others. Some politicians focus more on the common good while others act as political entrepreneurs and prioritize particular interests. But when the political system has fully embraced friend/enemy distinction, new approaches are needed to facilitate cross-party relations. Society, therefore, need new ways to counteract polarization. One solution, is to strengthen the deliberative component of democracy. In this sense, citizens' assemblies would be one option. These are groups of people, who meet over several weeks or months to discuss a specific topic. This participatory variant is being practiced for a long time limited to local and regional projects. Only recently citizens' assemblies have began to discuss issues of national relevance as well: from citizens assemblies in France and U.K. discussing climate change to the Irish assemblies, which generated two referenda, on same-sex marriage and on abortion that for a long time were regarded as too divisive. The experiences of citizens' assemblies that led to success show that 5 methodological criteria must be met for a citizens' assembly to be successful: 1) the deliberative model has to effectively inject into the political project. 2) to avoid the danger of manipulation, impartial actors (e.g. NGOs) should form the organizing committees. 3) Citizens' assemblies should not be seen as a substitute for politicians, parties or institutions, but complement it. 4) politicians must take citizens' assemblies seriously. 5) the debate in the context of a citizens' assembly should be accompanied by the media and thus be made accessible to many more people than just the participants. Many democracies around the world have been plagued by toxic polarization, thus increasing the potential danger to democracy. To ensure its longevity, new approaches must be found to minimize the danger. Citizens' assemblies could be one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment