Salzburg Global Fellow Risa Pieters believes that leaders can tackle divisions by proactively promoting pluralism and inclusive narratives
This article was written by Salzburg Global Fellow Risa Pieters, who participated in the Asia Peace Innovators Forum. Thanks to the generous support of the Nippon Foundation, she also attended Salzburg Global sessions on "Polarization and Violent Threats to Democratic Systems: Assessing the Threats and What We Can do About Them" and "Crossing the Pacific: The Asian American Experience in U.S. Society and Discourse" in September 2024. This article was informed by cross-contextual learnings gained from her experiences across these programs.
My work centers on bringing together leaders in government, business, and civil society across Asia to tackle cross-sector challenges, anticipate global headwinds, and strengthen regional cooperation, resilience, and peace. Leaders are attuned to the fact that Asia is not exempt from the global trends of democratic backsliding, rising anti-incumbency sentiment, and the spread of disruptive disinformation. In fact, many leaders are closely observing the pernicious polarization in the West and agree on the urgent need for action to prevent such extreme division and contest - and the political violence that can accompany it.
After participating in two Salzburg Global sessions in September 2024, I see great opportunity for leaders and leadership development programs in the region. These could address these trends by promoting pluralism and embracing essential tension to counter the expedient narratives of enmity that are fueling much of the polarization we see today.
The first session, "Polarization and Violent Threats to Democratic Systems: Assessing the Threats and What We Can do About Them," examined the factors contributing to growing polarization and political violence in advanced democracies. Discussions explored the milieu that allows ideological differences to escalate into affective polarization - the emotional division between opposing groups, where individuals perceive those on the “other side” as untrustworthy, immoral, or threatening. It is under these conditions that political violence is likely to arise and trust and social cohesion become difficult to rebuild. When divisions escalate into pernicious polarization, becoming structurally embedded in institutions and increasingly destabilizing, rebuilding social cohesion becomes an even greater generational challenge.
One key discussion focused on examining dangerous speech and the construction of fear, exploring how language escalates ideological polarization into affective polarization. The lesson for leaders, and emerging leaders, around the world was clear: language and cues from leaders, political elites, and influencers carry significant impact. Through language of “identifying the enemy,” leaders condition people to fear the other side by framing them as existential threats, mobilizing support through a shared urgency to defend “our values.” While narratives of enmity are expedient and powerful in driving collective action, they erode trust, stifle dialogue, hinder reconciliation, and risk escalating into affective polarization.
In the second session, “Crossing the Pacific: The Asian American Experience in U.S. Society and Discourse," we examined how narratives of enmity are often used to deflect public frustration and fear away from systemic issues or policy failures, redirecting them towards an external "enemy." The anti-Japanese propaganda of the 1970s and 1980s vividly illustrates this, fueling public violence, escalating anti-Asian hate, and culminating in the tragic murder of Vincent Chin. This demonstrates how framing a distant or foreign “enemy” can have devastating consequences for citizens at home. Similarly, the rise of anti-China narratives in the U.S. recently has been accompanied by a troubling increase in anti-Asian violence within its borders, underscoring the enduring harm such rhetoric inflicts.
From domestic politics to geopolitical rivalries, we’ve witnessed a troubling tolerance and social impunity for dangerous speech and violence grow over the past few years. In a recent speech on pluralism, Former President Barack Obama emphasized the need for a renewed commitment to pluralistic principles amongst leaders to counter these trends:
“No matter what country we’re talking about, the same basic question remains: Can the idea of pluralism work in the current moment? And, for that matter, is the concept even worth saving? I believe the answer is yes. I am convinced that if we want democracy, as we understand it, to survive, then we’re all going to have to work towards a renewed commitment to pluralist principles. Because the alternative is what we’ve seen here in the United States and in many democracies around the globe. Not just more gridlock and just public cynicism, but an increasing willingness on the part of politicians and their followers to violate democratic norms, to do anything they can to get their way, to use the power of the state to target critics and journalists and political rivals, and to even resort to violence in order to gain and hold on to power.”
Leaders can help renew and uphold pluralistic principles by first critically examining the ways their language contributes to or counters dangerous speech that deepens divides. Amid today’s rapidly evolving information ecosystem, leaders must also recognize how quickly politically acceptable policies can shift and the pivotal role their language plays in defining acceptable behavior. This requires influential voices to actively denounce demonizing rhetoric, exterminatory language, and all acts and threats of violence, as well as keep conspiracy theories at the fringe.
Resetting norms and refraining from harmful rhetoric is critical, but it is not enough. The proactive promotion of pluralism by leaders is more critical than ever. Leaders must not only avoid narratives of enmity but actively counter the influence of dangerous speech by fostering inclusive and constructive dialogue. Promoting pluralism means recognizing the dignity of every individual and fostering conditions where disagreement does not lead to demonization.
Leaders can create these conditions by building inclusive narratives of “us” that embrace diversity and make space “not only for the woke but also for the waking.” Disagreements and differing perspectives are vital for innovation and sustainability. By promoting pluralism, leaders can help people understand that some tension is not only healthy but essential. They can show that it is possible for us to deeply disagree without disconnecting. In fact, choosing to stay connected to each other is the simple but foundational first step towards breaking cycles of cynicism and shortening the distance between our differences.
Risa Pieters is the Deputy Director of Global Programs, Asia-Pacific Lead at the Obama Foundation. Risa brings nearly a decade of professional experience in the Asia-Pacific, working closely with nonprofits, policymakers, companies, and the region's emerging social impact leaders to advance pro-social initiatives and promote international cooperation and peace. Risa's career has been shaped by her mixed Japanese-South African background, working with atomic bomb survivors in Japan and anti-apartheid activists in South Africa. Her five years in Hong Kong focused on fostering cross-sector collaboration for social change across Asia. Now heading the Asia-Pacific Obama Leaders program, Risa is supporting emerging leaders in expanding their capacity for values-based leadership and building a community dedicated to collaborative progress and peace.
