Everyone Recognizes Polarization, Few Acknowledge Their Own
Political polarization is widely recognized as a societal problem, but far less often as a personal or institutional responsibility. When polarization is understood as something driven by others, it tends to persist and escalate into new forms.
January 30, 2026 | SOCIETY
Image by AI/S&P
Political polarisation
Political polarization is a phenomenon often associated with American politics, particularly after U.S. President Donald Trump announced his presidential candidacy for the Republican Party in 2015. Put simply, polarization can be described as a tension between conservative politics on one side and social democratic politics on the other, with liberalism positioned closer to the center.
In the United States, where there are in practice only two dominant parties, polarization between them is reinforced. At the same time, both parties also contain more liberal positions, which contributes to internal tension.
In Europe, where party systems are more fragmented, political polarization can be understood in two ways: first, voters may gravitate toward parties at the political extremes; second, parties may adjust their policies in order to prevent voter defection. Polarization is also evident in small countries such as Norway. One result has been that liberal parties such as the Centre Party and the Liberal Party have lost ground. That the Conservative Party has also lost ground can be seen in connection with the fact that its policies are more liberal than conservative.
The Christian Democratic Party, which has also experienced declining support, has shifted its policies in a more conservative direction without success. One possible explanation is that religious belief systems mobilize Norwegian voters only to a limited extent. Other belief systems that may influence voter behavior include philosophical, political, economic, or scientific ones, read more here.
The Center Under Pressure
Political polarization can be compared to a centrifuge: the higher the rotational speed, the more the political center is pushed outward. This helps explain how both party policies and voters become polarized. For many politicians and voters, recognition stops there: they are unwilling to acknowledge that they themselves are part of the polarization—it is always the other side that polarizes.
More concretely, this means that in Europe, conservative polarization is both identified and feared, while social democratic polarization is not recognized. This is illustrated by the European Union responding by moving closer to an increasingly authoritarian India and a communist, dictatorial China, without acknowledging this as an expression of social democratic polarization.
The Existence and Consequences of Polarization
The United States illustrates how political polarization can exist over a long period without its consequences being fully recognized until they have already materialized. Despite persistent and deep divisions in voters’ assessments of Trump, these divisions have remained stable rather than corrective. Polarization was visible, but its significance for governance, institutions, and political trust was largely acknowledged only after its damaging effects had become structural.
When the consequences of polarization become visible, it is rarely because they arise suddenly. More often, they are the result of having been allowed to develop over time without sufficient resistance or correction. In this space—between what is visible and what is actually acknowledged—both the press and the individual play a decisive role.
In this context, both the media and the individual bear a particular responsibility. The media play a central role in defining which forms of polarization are made visible, problematized, or normalized, and which remain unspoken. At the same time, responsibility cannot be reduced to editorial choices alone. Every participant in the public conversation contributes, consciously or unconsciously, to reinforcing or dampening polarization through their own judgments, sharing, and positioning. When polarization is understood solely as something driven by “the others,” this responsibility is also disclaimed. The relationship between the role of the media and collective misperceptions is explored in more detail in a separate article, read more here.
A necessary starting point, therefore, is not to identify who polarizes the most, but to ask which forms of polarization one contributes to normalizing, accepting, or overlooking oneself.
SOURCES
EBSCO
Overview of political polarization in political scienceBritannica
Encyclopedic explanation of political polarizationSUERF
Study on political polarization and gridlock in Europe using high-frequency indicesSyracuse University
Analysis of the “Great Divide” in US political polarizationThe Wire
Report on India’s decline in the Liberal Democracy Index according to V-DemJournal of Democracy
Essay examining the erosion of democratic institutions in IndiaFreedom House
Country report assessing political rights and civil liberties in IndiaDemocracy Journal
Analysis of democratic backsliding and its challenges in IndiaSage Journals
Academic study on electoral participation and democratic erosion in IndiaThe Economist
Interactive tracker monitoring approval and performance of the US presidency
Content on Society and Politics is based on reliable sources and actual events, providing a news-oriented perspective intented for further debate. To access the article’s author and the related debate, membership on Hudd is required.
