The volatility of polarized nations

from secular to polarized: a dived person is a divided country.

In healthy democracies, opposing sides are seen as political adversaries to compete against and at times to negotiate with. In deeply polarized democracies, the other side comes to be seen as an enemy needing to be vanquished and severe polarization can lead to vulnerability in democracy. the reality of life from a sociological perspective is that an individual problem becomes a community problem, a community problem becomes a national problem, so the question that would be asked is how can we deal with polarization from the local and neiborhood scale? can differences be solved?

polarized democracies around the world look at the processes by which societies divide into political “tribes” and where democracy is harmed. When political leaders cast their opponents as immoral or corrupt, they create an “us” and “them” camps –called by political scientists and psychologists “in-groups” and “out-groups– in the society. In this tribal dynamic, each side views the other “out group” party with increasing distrust, bias and enmity. Perceptions that “If you win, I lose” grow. Each side views the other political party and their supporters as a threat to the nation or their way of life if that other political party is in power. For that reason, the incumbent’s followers tolerate more illiberal and increasingly authoritarian behavior to stay in power, while the opponents are more and more willing to resort to undemocratic means to remove them from power damaging democracy.

many cases in the middle east have shown how polarization has led to volatility for years, with an expectation that this will continue for many years to come: we will look at 3 circles of polarization related to Lebanon country.

The polarization is between official governments and non-state actors in the Arab world. As governments have lost credibility and impact in recent decades, the vacuum has been filled by political parties and armed resistance groups, of which Hizbullah is the most impressive to date. Its historic successes in driving Israel out of Lebanon in 2000 and fighting it to a draw in 2006 will stimulate other like-minded movements in the region to emulate its organizational and political prowess. Tensions will increase throughout the region between worried governments and emboldened opposition movements. Inside Lebanon itself in the coming months, Hizbullah will find itself locked in a profound political struggle with those forces that want to disarm it. That contest will be only a microcosm of the wider struggle in the region between the legitimacy of the state and the counter-legitimacy of Islamist and resistance movements that feel they respond more effectively to their citizens’ needs and rights.

The second polarization is between countries and political forces within the region that are waging a regional cold war for the political identity of the Middle East. Syria and Iran, along with groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, the Moslem Brotherhood and others, are actively challenging the more conservative, often pro-Western states like Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Egypt. This contest will continue to simmer for many years. It is intimately linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the more militant or even “revolutionary” and Islamist parties confronting Israel while the moderate and traditionally pro-Western countries take a more relaxed position. One of the reasons for the rise of non-state parties and armed resistance groups in Lebanon and Palestine is precisely because the long-reigning Arab governments in the region have failed miserably either to make war or peace with Israel.

The third circle of polarization goes beyond the Middle East and is focused around the American pressure on Iran to stop its plans to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle. If nuclear issues form the core of this contestation, the wider struggle is about the ideological, social and economic orientation of the Middle East region. The IranianSyrian-Hizbullah-led camp sees itself fighting back against Israeli and American hegemony in the region, while the United States, closely allied with Israel, for its part speaks openly about creating a “new” Middle East of societies closely linked to Western values and interests. Hizbullah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has explicitly stated in recent television addresses that his group fought Israel in part to prevent Lebanon from permanently becoming part of American plans for a new Middle East.

The Dangerous Logic of Polarization

Polarizing leaders and parties need enemies to establish a dividing line between “Us” and “Them.” They stoke fear of these enemies to keep winning elections. The enemies can be external (immigrants in Hungary, foreign imperialists in Venezuela) or internal (Kurdish terrorists in Turkey, the media in the U.S., and anyone who does not agree with the leader). The extremists on either side of the divide then label moderates willing to compromise as “traitors colluding with the enemy” or “sell-outs.” In this way, the center disappears and radical positions dominate, resulting in political gridlock or even violent conflict.

Once a polarized way of thinking seeps in and voters feel deeply divided psychologically and spatially, it is very hard to reverse. Research4 on motivated reasoning helps us understand this problem. Emotions and unconscious desires and fears5 influence the way we interpret information, especially if we feel threatened. Voters are motivated to eliminate cognitive dissonance by rejecting facts that challenge their worldviews or self-concepts. Polarizing leaders learn that exploiting supporters’ fears and anxieties will win elections –and encourage that motivated reasoning.

As a result, when the Venezuelan government spins conspiracy theories to explain the nation’s dire problems, its hard-core supporters apparently believe them without question. Similarly, Trump’s birther movement resisted factual information about President Obama’s birthplace.

reference

Khouri, R. 2006. issue of the Middle East Program’s Occasional Paper Series

McCoy, J. 2019. Polarization harms democracy and society, peace in progress.