ARTICLE BY JOANNE PAYTON
Joanne Payton is a criminologist with expertise in harmful traditional practices, feminism, extremism and the Middle East.
We live in a polarised political culture – or at least, we think we do. As Rachel Kleinfeld notes, while America is often located as an extremely polarised Western society, characterised as implacably torn between urban and rural values, divided by race and culture – there is actually a great deal of cross-party consensus. The average American citizen has a cluster of opinions which are broadly similar; what differs is their priorities.
It is those citizens who are most politically engaged who are most likely to perceive these cleavages between left and right as intractable – but these are inevitably the people that drive the discourse. Moderate, centrist and pluralist opinions are rarely those which are liked, shared and quoted. Importantly, they do not make people angry, and anger – particularly when it is boosted by algorithms – is a very effective driver of online engagement.
Anger also makes problems feel intractable – which can potentially lead to domestic extremism, seen as the only way to effect change. A year after the attack upon the Capitol, in which terrified legislators cowered in fear of their lives from insurrectionists, one in five American adults felt political violence could be justified in certain circumstances. In the UK, before the 1990s, four MPs were assassinated by the IRA. This was followed by the murder of Jo Cox, MP for Batley and Spen in 2016 by a far-right extremist, and David Amess, MP for Southend West in 2021 by a radical Islamist. In the USA, in 2022, Paul Pelosi, husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked with a hammer by a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He was 82 years of age at the time of the attack. In Europe, the Prime Ministers of Denmark and Slovakia have both been assaulted. Even the lowest level agents of democracy are threatened: election officials may be subjected to unbearable bullying.
Although some of those attacks are conducted by self-radicalised loners rather than the confluence of radicalised people who assembled at the Capitol, there is often support for political violence within organised activist movements – on the political left as well as the right, where assaults may be celebrated as ‘art’ or ‘funny’, despite intimidating their targets and obstructing peaceful gatherings. They are also likely to be counterproductive, creating sympathy for the target and a making their targets feel persecuted. Most disconcertingly, legitimate anger at Israel’s war in Gaza have led to a rising tide of violent antisemitism.
‘Physical violence against candidates is an affront to democracy,’ stated the CEO of the Jo Cox Foundation. A climate in which violence against politicians is cast as acceptable is one that delimits political participation to the brave, the brash and the foolhardy – who may well not be the most competent lawmakers. Women and minorities seeking public office already pay a high price, dealing with harassment on the basis of their sex and background. Normalising a political climate in which terrorising politicians is acceptable may make that price unaffordable and further decrease the diversity of views in legislature.
A commitment to pluralism requires that democracies debate, rather than exclude, extreme or unpopular opinions. It is essential, then, that those in public office, and those seeking public office, are protected from harm and attacks upon them are taken seriously by law enforcement. Every politician most be ready to confront robust challenges and debate to their positions; none should fear personal harm.
This does not imply curtailing political activism. Political engagement is essential to the functioning of democracy. The electoral process is the minimal form of this. Pluralist democracies allow for additional means for engaged citizens to raise issues: contacting their representatives, protesting, raising petitions, starting pressure groups, responding to consultations and lobbying for change. These legitimate methods are slow and uncertain of success. They involve organisational skills and a great deal of hard graft. If they are at all motivated by anger, it is a fierce determination channelled effectively and non-violently into campaigning.
In the echo chambers of radical political activism, acts are often performed with the intention of energising their base, personal excitement and gaining status within activist communities. Often, the impact of such actions may functionally become subordinated to these concerns, alienating potential supporters and sending unclear messages. The myth-making around past campaigns often centres upon cinematic moments: a woman with sore feet refusing to give up her seat; a brick hurled to prevent a police raid upon a nightclub. Such compelling moments capture the imagination. The tedious work of envelope-stuffing, letter-writing and minute-taking are comparatively dull. And yet, the bulk of social change is done by diligent campaigning, not single events.
Those who carry out extremist violence are not necessarily motivated by a cause: they also seek significance, status within their group, and excitement. Actions forged from the crucible of group-think are not necessarily best-attuned to change policy. Even without this, effective campaigning is challenging. All too often, the levers of power are opaque and legislators distant from local and popular concerns. Young people may learn the history of suffrage, for instance, but be unaware of how to mount a political campaign within the democracy in which they live. And yet, this capacity is significant to democratic participation – and may reduce radicalisation.
Kate Barrelle studied former radical environmentalists, finding that while they may have carried out illegal activities as students, once employed they were able to pursue their social objectives legitimately – and more effectively. Many countries have schemes to support new businesses, recognising that innovation in business is a vital part of a thriving economy. There is no comparable infrastructure to support new ideas and campaigns despite the importance of innovation in politics.
Disillusionment with mainstream politics is not restricted to radicals: low voting turnout indicates apathy, and voter apathy favours populism. This is particularly visible amongst the young, where only 40% of under-35s intend to vote in the UK’s forthcoming general election – a particularly low figure in the European context. Of those young people who are politically engaged, right-wing populism is ascendant across Europe; in the UK, young people prefer Farage’s populist Reform party to the Conservatives.
Where only those people with strong, and often rigid, positions are engaged in political discourse, polarisation is a likely outcome; populism often indicates concerns which the current political system is failing to address. Both indicate a need for broadening participation.
‘Thick’ democracies benefit from a rich, and where necessary, oppositional civil society. One promising initiative is the use of citizen’s assemblies – crowdsourcing knowledge and opinion on divisive issues through a co-production model. Sortition – a system in operation in ancient Athens and the city states of Renaissance Italy – allows for the selection of a randomised sample of the citizenry to consider contemporary issues, acting as representative of the population at large. It is a process closer to the deliberations of a jury than the polarising argy-bargy of confrontational politics.
The society we live in may not – yet – be as polarised as we believe it to be. But as ideas, memes and misinformation spin around in the centrifuge of social media, it may well become so. Those citizens who are currently disengaged from politics may in fact a crucial resource within democracies: their views are not psychologically calcified nor understood by political elites.
Against the threats of radicalisation, polarisation and extremism, democracies need to embrace pluralism and civic engagement, protect all of those in public office and, most importantly, increase engagement with the populace.