Political polarization and its consequences on democratic accountability

Abstract

This paper first explores the polarizationthesis, according to which between 1990-2010 political polarization increased to a large extent in the Hungarian political elite and among citizens, although it did not undermine the stability of the political system. Second, it gives an endogenousexplanation for this phenomenon. Third, through theoretical discussion and empirical examples taken from Hungarian politics it is revealed that although growing polarization has not generated regime instability, it reduces, or might reduce, the efficiency of the operation of democracy. Five mechanisms of the effects of ideological polarization which weaken democratic accountability are explored.

Sweet victory, bitter defeat: The amplifying effects of affective and perceived ideological polarization on the winner–loser gap in political support

“…Voters with high levels of perceived ideological polarization experience greater utilitarian stakes during the election, since from their perspective ‘a change of government may result in radically different, even completely opposing public policy’ (Körösényi, 2013, p. 24). In other words, the greater the perceived ideological range of parties, the more it matters for policy outcomes who wins or loses the election (Harteveld & Wagner, 2021; Wagner, 2021).…”

Measuring partisan polarization with partisan differences in satisfaction with the government: the introduction of a new comparative approach

“…Severe partisan polarization takes place when partisan identities increasingly act as a social identity (Fiorina et al 2005;Lauka et al 2018), contributing to hostility and distrust for the out-party and unconditional loyalty for the in-party (Iyengar et al 2012;Körösényi 2013;Lauka et al 2018;Mason 2015;McCoy et al 2018;Patkós 2019;Reiljan 2020;Wagner 2020), which groups may be constituted by more than one party. That is, in these cases, partisan bias in voters' evaluations is very strongly present, leading to a tribal style in politics (Green et al 2004;Mason 2015;McCoy et al 2018).…”

“…Campaigns often go nasty, as the stakes are high and both sides tend to think that the ends justify the means. Everyday politics also is a zero-sum game, with the constant sensation that the future of the country is at stake, which contributes to a need to win over the other camp in every situation and to reject consensus with the other side (Goldstone and Ulfelder 2004;Hetherington 2009;Körösényi 2013;Mason 2015;Street et al 2014;Ward and Tavits 2019).…”

Political polarization may affect attitudes towards vaccination. An analysis based on the European Social Survey data from 23 countries

“…Political polarization has been increasing in many countries around the world in recent years, largely owing to the rise of populist and right-wing governments. 1 Political polarization may result in increased confirmation bias and, consequently, the strengthening of disinformation mechanisms 2 or policy distortion, 3 thus, undermining the effectiveness of regulations, including those related to public health. This raises the question of whether such specific contexts influenced how the governments responded to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and determined whether the vaccination programmes in these countries were effective or not.…”