Polarization: Threat or Driver for Democracy?
VUB research adds nuance to the debate
Polarization is often seen as a danger to democracy. But is that always the case? The doctoral research recently defended by Kamil Bernaerts (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, in collaboration with the University of Warwick) shows that the picture is more nuanced. Not all forms of polarization are harmful, and the way a democracy is institutionally organized can play an important buffering role.
Bernaerts examined polarization both at the micro level (through survey experiments with 2,000 citizens in Belgium and the United Kingdom) and at the macro level (comparative research across 113 countries). His findings show that not every form of polarization undermines democracy. It is mainly emotional and social polarization – when citizens experience feelings of hate, anger, or distance towards opponents, or no longer wish to interact with them – that appears to strengthen anti-democratic attitudes such as intolerance, support for political violence, or reduced support for democracy. Affective polarization towards political parties, on the other hand, proves to be far less problematic and can even be linked to more pro-democratic behavior.
In a second part, Bernaerts investigated how the degree of polarization varies between democratic institutional structures. His analysis indicates that consensus democracies – such as Belgium and the Netherlands, characterized by proportional representation and broad coalition governments – are generally less polarized than majoritarian democracies such as the United Kingdom or the United States. Moreover, the likelihood that polarization is linked to political violence is smaller in consensus democracies. Thanks to their inclusive institutions, consensus democracies may therefore provide a buffer against extreme forms of conflict.
The research leads to two key takeaways:
- Polarization is not inherently harmful. It can also contribute to political change and debate. It is mainly emotional and social forms of polarization that pose a danger.
- Democratic institutions matter. The way a democracy is organized can temper polarization and thus strengthen stability.
“Public debate often equates polarization with democratic decline, but that is too simplistic,” says Kamil Bernaerts. “Polarization is part of democracy, but there is a limit: once polarization takes emotional and social forms, democracy can come under pressure. My research shows that we need to look in a nuanced way at both the types of polarization and the types of institutions.”
Bernaerts’ doctorate was supervised by Prof. Didier Caluwaerts (VUB) and Prof. Michael Saward (University of Warwick), in the research groups DFUTURE Research Center (VUB) and Political and International Studies (University of Warwick). The collaboration was made possible through a joint PhD grant from the EUTOPIA network, of which the VUB rector was president at the time of writing.
References:
Bernaerts K, Caluwaerts, D (2025) Fight or unite? Exploring the link between consensus institutions, polarization, and political violence in 113 democracies over time (1900–2023). International Political Science Review. Online First: https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121251355894.
Bernaerts, K., Blanckaert, B., & Caluwaerts, D. (2023). Institutional design and polarization. Do consensus democracies fare better in fighting polarization than majoritarian democracies? Democratization, 30(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2022.2117300
Contact:
Dr. Kamil Bernaerts: kamil.bernaerts@vub.be, +32 497 23 62 71
