Polarisation and Disengagement

Democratic norms are said to be eroding, trust in democratic governments weakening and people are disengaging from democratic politics. Many reasons can be given for these tendencies. Politicians focus on the short term and seem to lack credibility when they claim to know what they are doing. People have many things to take care of in their lives and political involvement does not seem to merit our time and attention. It is easier to vote the way we always have, or listen to our networks of friends, and anchor our views and votes along with them - that is if we want to vote at all.

Polarisation is included along with other causes of the erosion of democratic norms and so is disengagement. Both can be seen as symptoms of other things going wrong with democratic politics. Both also contribute themselves to what is seen to be going wrong. Moreover, they are related.

​This blog examines the relationship between two alleged reasons why democracy is said to be in trouble.
 
Polarisation leads to disengagement?
 
The relationship between polarisation and depoliticization can be seen to run from polarisation to depoliticization. Polarised opinion turns people off from politics and makes it seem useless to try to engage in political discussion. Whatever is said is not going to change minds. To the extent that polarisation reflects unyielding views about identity and possibly religion it is likely to resist change and the views of those outside the same affiliations.
 
Even in a polarised context political engagement may still seem worthwhile as a means of registering difference and as protest. For example, those supporting Biden may be voting as much against Trump and his polarised followers as they are for what Biden stands for. However, the democratic ideal of reasoned discussion, including with those with whom we disagree, is not likely to be much in evidence. Attempts to engage seem likely to be fruitless.
 
Disengagement leads to polarisation
 
The other view of the relationship is that the reasons why people disengage from politics also propels them towards extremes. If people feel that elected representatives no longer stand for their interests, if they find government distant and government services difficult to access then they may turn away from democratic politics completely as irrelevant and a waste of their time. As an alternative to total abstention or disengagement, the giving of support to fringe views may seem like a way of registering protest at the elites who are perceived to dominate the political scene. 
 
The vanishing centre
 
Both disengagement and polarisation weaken the centre ground of electoral politics. Traditionally political parties were seen as playing a mediating role and cultivating the median voter. Political parties have an incentive to appeal to the centre if they feel that voters are flexible in their views and if parties themselves want to extend their own electoral base for greater appeal. If on the contrary they feel that voters are disengaged, that their views are rigid, then parties may act only to cement their existing base. They reinforce polarisation.
 
Non electoral influences
 
It would be a mistake to attribute polarisation simply to the dynamics of representative government and electoral behaviour. Part of the disengagement with politics comes from the law. With an increasing number of social and distributional issues being decided through judicial processes, both courts and tribunals, protest votes look for somewhere to go. The choice is either to disengage from judicialized politics or to vote for an extreme. Judicial appointments themselves become the target of politicisation. 
 
Refreshing representative chambers?
 
The UK general election shows that elections can still be fought from the centre. In cases such as the US and in many countries in Europe there is no magic bullet to restore the centre ground of democratic politics. However, a starting point would be to examine the principles of representation in elected chambers so as to ensure that voters can identify more readily with them and see them as authentic voices for their own concerns in life.