Salzburg Global Fellows propose a research agenda aimed at mitigating the risks of political violence in polarized societies
This article addresses the urgent question of polarization and its complex relationship to political violence, with the specific intent to identify critical questions and key areas of research that might inform both academic understanding and policy interventions. The need for new research that accounts for specific forms of political violence, especially those not directly related to polarization, is important to ensure that academic and applied research is useful in democratic systems facing a growing threat from political violence.
Definitional Clarity
A primary focus for a new research agenda needs to start with a clear definition of political violence and its distinction from related concepts such as political conflict and political polarization. These terms are often used interchangeably, which leads to confusion in research and policy contexts.
- Political Conflict: Represents disagreements or competition in the political sphere, which does not inherently involve violence.
- Political Polarization: Involves the growing ideological distance between political groups, which can heighten societal tensions but does not always result in violence. Levels of polarization can be understood by measuring the distance between groups on specific political scales, including ideological scales such as “Left” vs. “Right”, or by understanding “affective polarization”, which measure scales such as the level “Like” and “Dislike” or “Us” vs. “Them” political camps. These forms of polarization are evident when political identity creates a more specific form of social identity that bundles both policy issues and cultural identities into single groups with their own political identity, often defined by mutual antagonism for political opponents.
- Political Violence: The use of physical force, coercion, or intimidation to achieve political goals. It encompasses a wide range of actions, from violent acts against individuals or groups, to state-sponsored violence, and to physical violence and intimidation used by both state and non-state actors. Political violence often targets marginalized communities and seeks to undermine democratic participation, destabilize governance, or to maintain power.
It is essential to distinguish between these terms to ensure research focuses on the right questions, drivers, and solutions. In this context, one of the critical research gaps addressed is: At what point does political polarization serve as a catalyst for political violence?
Not all polarization leads to violence, so understanding the thresholds and conditions under which this occurs is key. Some violence may be unrelated to polarization but can still destabilize political systems. It is therefore necessary to understand different types of violence and how they relate to threats within democratic systems.
Enabling Conditions of Political Violence
Political polarization is a significant but not singular factor in the emergence of political violence. Polarization may act as an enabling condition that, in conjunction with other factors, creates the environment for violence. Several enabling conditions were identified, including:
- Social and Economic Inequality: This creates fertile ground for grievances and resentment, increasing the potential for radicalization. The fragmentation of society into "in-group solidarity" and othering practices creates the potential for violence.
- Misinformation and Disinformation: The role of digital media in spreading false narratives exacerbates societal divisions and fosters polarization.
- Weak or Corrupt Political Institutions: Where political institutions are fragile or lack legitimacy, the likelihood of violence increases. Without functional mechanisms to resolve political disputes, individuals and groups may resort to violence.
- Breakdown of Shared Social Interests: Group dynamics, particularly the psychological need for belonging, can intensify polarization. When group identities are threatened, violence may be seen as a legitimate response to protect that identity. Factors to review include economic inequality, demographic shifts, and feelings of political disenfranchisement.
- Fear and Perception of Threat: Polarized groups often perceive each other as existential threats. This perception of fear can drive groups toward violent behaviors as they act defensively.
- Radicalization: In polarized societies, fear and threat perceptions may lead individuals to become radicalized, adopting extreme views that justify violence as a means of political expression.
- Psychological Activation: Psychological factors such as fear, insecurity, and heightened identity-based threats can activate latent tensions, potentially turning political conflict into political violence. Understanding the conditions that activate violence is essential.
While complex, this project suggests exploring a new multidisciplinary research agenda to examine these enabling conditions in different contexts. These conditions act as "fuel", but violence typically requires a catalyst or "spark" to ignite.
Catalysts and Triggers of Political Violence
Alongside enabling conditions, a new research agenda should focus on identifying the catalysts or triggers that activate political violence. These triggers can be events, narratives, or specific grievances that instigate violence. Some potential areas for further research include:
- Electoral Disputes: Contentious elections, especially when there are accusations of fraud or corruption, can act as a trigger for political violence, particularly in highly polarized environments.
- Misogynistic and Gender-based Violence: Increasingly, political violence is intersecting with other societal issues, such as misogynistic violence, which complicates the narrative and underscores the need for an intersectional approach to studying violence.
- Society of Enmity: The idea of a "society of enmity" refers to a state where individuals perceive each other not as political adversaries but as existential threats. This societal breakdown is often a precursor to violence.
- Neural Mechanisms and Radicalization: How do neural mechanisms associated with fear, empathy, and decision making contribute to political radicalization, and can these pathways be targeted to reduce extremism and violence?
- Algorithmic Governance: How does algorithmic governance in public policy unintentionally exacerbate polarization, and how can perceptions of fairness be improved?
- Micro-Level Ideological Contagion: What are the micro-level social dynamics that enable the spread of extremist ideologies, and how can these networks be disrupted?
- What Factors Normalize Violence?: How do conflicts become normalized in society, and what measures can be taken to de-normalize violence?
A “Field Guide” to Assess Polarization and Violence
As a next step in this research agenda, one suggestion from this project is create a "Field Guide" that would map out different forms of polarization and violence across different contexts and stages. This guide would serve as both an academic resource and a practical tool for policymakers and civil society actors. The guide would focus on:
- Profiles of Violent Actors: Research would examine who engages in political violence and why. Understanding the motivations, grievances, and contexts that lead individuals or groups to violence is crucial.
- Types and Stages of Polarization: The guide would map the typologies and stages of polarization, tracking how political conflict and political competition emerge from non-violent political contexts into political violence.
- Assessing the Triggers: Are there specific types of triggers that “activate” political violence? What are they, and how can they be understood and utilized to assess the threats of widespread political violence?
- Normalization of Violence: One of the key research areas is to explore how violence becomes normalized in a society. What stages lead to this normalization, and what interventions can disrupt this process?
- Enabling Factors and Solutions: The guide would also focus on identifying enabling factors of violence and proposing practical solutions.
This research agenda will inform both academic inquiry and policy interventions aimed at mitigating the risks of political violence in polarized societies. Immediate next steps include assembling a task force to develop detailed research proposals and seeking interdisciplinary collaboration.
The Salzburg Global Fellows who authored this article attended the Salzburg Global session on “Polarization and Violent Threats to Democratic Systems: Assessing the Threats and What We Can do About Them” from September 16 to 18, 2024.
The Violent Threats to Democratic Systems project is developing an international, interdisciplinary network of researchers and stakeholders working on understanding and addressing rising polarization and political violence in a range of mature democratic systems. In addition, the project is defining a set of critical questions and objectives to inform and shape a new research agenda on the rise of polarization and political violence across selected countries.
Salzburg Global is grateful to the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation for their generous support and partnership that made this program possible.
