Ecaterina Dermenji

Integrative Seminar

300-308-DW sect.19007

5 August 2022

Liberal Democracy vs Political Polarization

Democracy is, for several reasons, a better state form of government than others. If we

look at the definition of this concept, how it is presented in the Britannica dictionary, democracy

is “a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state

or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by […] all (or nearly all) adult citizens”. Just

below it also explains why this form of government is better than the others. “States with

democratic governments prevent rule by autocrats, guarantee fundamental individual rights,

allow for a relatively high level of political equality, and rarely make war on each other.” From

this point of view, it really looks like a dream.

Moving away from scientific definitions, as if we were trying to explain to a small child,

why is democracy better? First, democracy is better welcomed by the population, and if the

people perceive any system well, the better this system works. The population perceives it well

because democracy gives people the opportunity to participate. The state gives people the

opportunity to participate in the political process, for example, through the possibility of electing

political representatives in the highest spheres of states, such as presidential elections. In an ideal

democracy, every person has such opportunities, regardless of their race, origin, gender, etc. In

the same way, a democratic state must defend the rights of its inhabitants, whether it be the right

to vote, the right to expression. If we turn directly to people and ask how they understand the

word democracy, then we see that “An open ended question in a 1970s Dutch survey revealed
that most people (39 per cent of the 890 valid responses) associated democracy with liberty

(freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom, being free, free country), while 9.9 per cent

mentioned some sort of equality (equality, equal rights and duties)” (Thomassen 1995, 384-5;

Baviskar & Malone, 2004, p.5).

For all its prospects, democracy is still not an ideal system, and over time there can occur

such a process as the democracy backsliding. Unlike more extremist system collapses, such as

civil war, democratic backsliding is gradual. We can say that in such a situation, democracy

begins to crumble slowly from the inside, gradually losing ground on those points that were

previously fundamental. Democracy is not disappearing, but its quality is deteriorating. The hope

the democracy gave to ordinary people, that they will have an opportunity with their common

decision to change something, vanishes “when people feel that democracy is a political system

controlled by the rich and powerful, and elections offer candidates who appear the same with

little hope of change, they may withdraw from the political system altogether” (Gandhi, 2019,

p.13).

Poland and Hungary are examples of democratic backsliding. These two countries of

Central Europe became democratic relatively recently, some 30 years ago. But despite this, after

a little more than a half of this period, democracy began to backslide. Open-ended coups d’état,

strategic harassment, and manipulation, election-day vote fraud, and so forth, all this led to the

fact that two years ago, in 2020, both of these countries “have clearly crossed the line and left

liberal democracy behind” (Everette, 2021, p.398). And this happened first of all because the

rulers "honestly" chosen by the people did not even think of adhering to democratic principles.

Levitsky and Ziblatt commented that in their book “How Democracies Die” saying that new

authorities decided to:

 “subvert democracy – packing and ‘weaponizing’ the courts and other neutral agencies,

buying off the media and the private sector [or bullying them into silence], and rewriting the

rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents. The tragic paradox of the electoral

route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy –

gradually, subtly, and even legally – to kill it.”

The democratic backsliding can appear because of several problems in the nation. There

are various reasons why this is so, but in this essay we will consider the problem of polarization.

Political polarization is one the biggest treats to present democracy. The Merriam-Webster

dictionary explains the word polarization as an act of separation of a society in two separate

groups with extremely opposite opinions. Political polarization respectively means division of

people based on their political visions. Democracy, meanwhile, represents completely different

values, namely the system of governing the state with the help of popular decisions, which also

includes the equality of a given people and equal participation in political decision-making of all

the population. From the understanding of these two concepts, we can conclude that they

contradict each other and the existence of one within one society leads to the destruction of the

other.

Political polarization is happening around the world in completely different democracies

and on completely different topics. For example, the aggravation of the conflict between the left

and right wings in the Nordic countries due to political polarization at the expense of the

education system. “Left-wing parties have advocated comprehensive and compulsory public

schooling, equal for all children; while right-wing parties have advocated less

comprehensiveness, more parental freedom to choose education, and more private schools”

(Fladmoe, 2012, p.460). In addition, detailed social studies have statistically shown that the
public education system is more supported by representatives of social democratic parties than

by conservatives. From this we can conclude that people become oppositionists on the basis of

different visions of the education system for their children, although they were already in a

tense situation due to political views. And what people should have been unanimous about, the

education of their future generations, which is incredibly important for the future state, they

collide with their foreheads. The state leads to one side ousting the other, but in a democratic

state there should be the right to have a choice.

Polarization also has several more global causes, but in this essay we will consider only

two of them. One of them is migration. At the moment, migration has become commonplace,

which is why most modern countries consist of more than one ethnic group. Cultural difference

already divided people based on their ethnicity and differences of their mindsets don't help with

unification of the society. So, migration creates all the conditions for the emergence of the

polarization of democracy. But does the blending of culturally different people and their

integration in a new society could cause international conflicts which leads to polarization of

liberal democracy in that society? After studying many different resources, one can conclude that

there may be another side of the coin. Many sources give examples and arguments that

migration, on the contrary, contributes to the promotion of democracy and its strengthening. This

essay will compare the positive and negative effects of migration on the democratic structure of

the state and will summarize which effect is more valuable. Further in essay will be presented

arguments for the fact that migration divides people into “us and them” and how it interferes

with society. However, it will be also presented arguments against, proving that the integration

of migrants in a new society, on the contrary, contributes to its strengthening, as well as that

multiculturalism leads to diversity in rights.

 First of all, let's consider why so many modern politicians and ordinary citizens are

opposed to migration and immigrants. How the public perceives migration depends entirely on

how this migration is presented by the state, how well the state manages the integration of the

immigrants. Book “The Global State of Democracy 2017” in their chapter 7 gives a good

commentary on that saying that “Such perceptions may affect the public’s willingness to support

policymakers, depending on whether citizens trust that politicians and political institutions are

able to handle the migration challenge (Miller and Listhaug 1990: p.358).” In other words,

government’s actions can create negative or positive perception of the migration and if they

don’t do a great job that is when the polarization begins to appear. The actions taken by the state

in the first place is the issuance of citizenship to its new residents, for which the conditions differ

from country to country. This is “one way to encourage migrants to participate in political life on

a par with natives and increase their sense of belonging is to promote inclusive naturalization

policies that allow dual nationality (Dumbrava 2010; Blatter 2011).”(International IDEA 2017,

p.209) Another way to encourage immigrants to assimilate with host country is to give them

right to vote, which is usually given when obtaining citizenship, and also the possibility to have a

seat in higher legislative structure to show other immigrants that they have their own ambassador

to protect their rights. All these actions are the key to establish contact between the state,

immigrants, and residents. The diversity of people can give the state diversity of representants

and therefore diversity of decisions which can satisfy bigger number of people. And the more

people are satisfied with a large choice of rights and decisions, the stronger liberal democracy in

a given country becomes.

In addition to government efforts to spread democracy, immigrants themselves also

contribute to the spread of democratic ideology. Being in the territory of their host country, in
search of support from their compatriots who find themselves in an analogous situation, they

create diasporas. The meaning of a diaspora is defined the best by Gerard-Francois Dumont as “a

community of individuals living together on the same territory and having in common the

conviction or belief of belonging, themselves or their families to another territory with which

they maintain regular relations”. Through such communities, they not only share with their

compatriots already living in a given country the values of a democratic state they have acquired,

but what is no less important, they broadcast these values to their compatriots in their own

countries. Especially during modern methods of communication, such diasporas create a

connection between their "new and old home" which makes it possible for the development of

democratic thinking in countries where this ideology is only in its infancy.

Nevertheless, migration has an enormous number of oppositionists. Due to the fact that at

the moment migration is growing in progression, more anti-migration parties are appearing.

These kind of movements use the “us versus them” mentality in their propaganda of xenophobia.

One of the most known representative of such a policy is the former president of the United

States Donald Trump. His entire election campaign arose on anti-migration slogans, such as

"make America great again" thus meaning expelling immigrants who interfere with the

development of the country. For example, one of the measures he presented in 2017 was the

famous decree prohibiting nationals of six and then nine Muslim-majority countries from

entering the territory of the United States. "Cette mesure a d’emblée paru inédite et fait l’objet

d’une bataille judiciaire concernant sa constitutionnalité – bataille gagnée par Trump, semble-t-

il, avec l’appui de la Cour suprême à la troisième version du décret, en juin dernier. "(Bonzom

2018, p.3) His other equally aggressive idea was to "protect" the United States from Mexico with

a wall. This idea itself represents ethical and even physical division of people on the basis of
nationality. This type of behavior of a politician and ideology generates polarization among

people, which subsequently lead to active actions in pursuit of proving their point of view in the

eyes of opponents. In the Trump example, this led to “Protests in the streets and motions in the

courts halted or delayed the Trump administration's immigration policies. Polls showed that

ordinary people disapproved of the president's actions.”(Hout, Maggio 2021, p.42). This is an

example of the polarization of democracy.

Another example of political polarization occurred in several European countries in 2015-

2016. In connection with the civil war in Syria, many European countries accepted refugees,

which aroused anti-migration attitudes which promotes Islamophobia in the local population. As

a result of these events, many nationalist parties gained more support. “These parties (anti-

immigrant) have been on the rise in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK, as well as in

the traditionally liberal Netherlands and the Nordic states and have secured significant

parliamentary blocs in several countries.” (International IDEA 2017, p.217) The representative

of the National Front party, Marina Le Pen, was able to advance the farthest. She was able to

garner support from the white working class who supported anti-migration ideals. In May 2017,

with the support gathered, Marina even reached the second round of the French presidential

election, where she was defeated. The popularization of these movements just created a conflict

in the population, thereby giving way to the polarization of democracy in European countries.

Final example of the potential for democratic polarization to emerge based on perceptions

of migration would be Canada. Let’s consider that Canada as a country what was founded by

immigrants and to this day is one of the friendliest countries for accepting immigrants.

Therefore, there is a possibility that it is a large number of immigrants that gives the potential to

divide people into those who are for migration and those who are against. Rachel McLay and
Howard Ramos for their article called “Do Polarization Narratives Apply to Politics on the

Periphery? The Case of Atlantic Canada” conducted a detailed statistical study of the opinions

of Canadians based on their political beliefs. In conclusion, they say that:

“Finally, despite the progressive consensus in Atlantic Canada, there is a small, engaged

minority perceiving increasing polarization and extremism. These individuals tend to hold very

progressive views and are often highly engaged with concerns about the broader political climate

outside the Atlantic region. At the other end of the spectrum, a tiny proportion hold very

conservative views, and they may also be highly engaged on contentious matters and in

polarizing debates, especially on immigration and tolerance for socio-cultural diversity in

Canada.”(Maclay & Ramos, 2021, p.10)

Summing up all the above arguments, we can conclude that migration still contributes to

the political polarization of liberal democracy. But this happens only as a consequence of the

behavior of politicians in relation to migration. We see that ordinary people change their opinion

about the successful integration of immigrants and how these immigrants affect their country

only in direct proportion to how this integration is carried out by the state itself. If the state

immediately promotes a clear introduction of immigrants into their population, then people do

not have a sense of separation and have one common intention. Since in this essay we talked

about diversity of people producing diversity of rights, next we will talk about other cause of

democratic polarization namely, related to the fundamental violation of democratic human right

of having a right to their own body.

The second reason for political polarization is more gender-focused. To explain this

reason, I will return to the definition of democracy presented above. It mentions that democracy

“guarantee fundamental individual rights” for all, with which everyone agrees. However, there is
one right that is directly violated by the state, which is contrary to the very idea of democracy. It

is precisely the violation of this right that creates polarization. This right, which is violated at the

state level, is the right of women to have a choice, specifically the right of women to have an

abortion. This happened in several countries, but I will concentrate on the case in United Sates. I

will briefly present the story of how this right was passed into law and accepted by people. I will

also describe in detail the consequences of these actions, how they affect society and how

polarization occurs because of this.

Let's make a small step back to explain what Roe vs Wade is, how it arose and what it led

to. Roe refers to the law 410 U.S. 113 which was accepted by U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

The Texas hearing that led to this legislation was initiated by one woman, Jane Roe. At that

moment, she was arguing to the court that she had the right to have the opportunity to make a

choice and to have the right to a legal abortion. What Ms. Roe achieved was a breakthrough

not only for her alone but for all women in the United States. The adoption of such a law had

many consequences, both positive and negative.

Let's start with the positives. First of all, the legalization of abortion made it safer. “In

1965, abortion was so unsafe that 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth

were the result of illegal abortion.”(Planned Parenthood, p.2) The fact that abortions were not

recognized as legal did not prevent them from happening anyway. But it was the legalization

of abortion that contributed to the creation of abortion clinics and professional doctors

specializing in abortion, which led to a decrease in the statistics of deaths due to abortion.

“Abortion-related mortality in 1973 was an estimated 3.4 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. In

1980, the figure was 0.5 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions-an 85% decrease”. (Kunins &

Rosenfield, p. 373) The legalization of abortion also gave women the opportunity to develop.
They had a choice about their body that gave them the opportunity to choose their future,

something that, for example, men have always had. In 1992, Supreme Court of US even noted

that ““the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation

has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Planned Parenthood of

Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992). The legalization of abortion, in addition to single

women, also helped poor families. Families that were already living from check to check simply

could not afford another child. The new law gave them a choice, too.

However, the acceptance of Roe by Supreme Court l led to huge polarization amongst

nation. Pro-life organizations that have previously actively participated in the social life of

people as well as political ones have reached a new level of action. This divided people into

two camps to this day. Emily Bazelon has called this “the intractable, depressing national

divide over abortion.”( Bazelon, supra note 2) In addition to social discourse against Roe, Pro-

life activists, their more extremist representatives have even made more significant actions

showing their attitudes towards abortion, namely abortion clinics.

“Depuis 1977, il y a eu plus de 80 000 actes de violence menés contre les cliniques ou

personnes qui fournissent des conseils ou pratiquent des avortements à travers le pays. Sachant

qu’environ 1 800 personnes sont habilitées à pratiquer des avortements, il y a eu, depuis 1977, 7

meurtres, 17 tentatives de meurtres, 41 cliniques totalement détruites par des explosifs, 166

cliniques mises à feu (82 tentatives similaires ayant échoué), 373 cambriolages et vols de

personnes ou dans les cliniques, 1 042 actes de vandalisme, 100 attaques contre les cliniques ou

personnel des cliniques à l’acide butyrique (un liquide clair sans couleur avec une odeur de vomi

qui ne part jamais), 654 menaces d’anthrax par lettre, dont 480 depuis le 11 septembre, 125
agressions physiques de personnel, 355 menaces de mort (prononcées désormais sur des sites

internet) et 3 enlèvements.” (Merchant, pp. 773-774)

Let's move forward to our days. U.S. Supreme Court decides to drop the Roe, causing

even more polarization than when it was passed in 1973. This decision goes against the rights

that should be protected at the constitutional level. Thousands of women came out to protest as

soon as they learned that the law protecting their right to choose, which has been in force for

almost 50 years, will be taken away from them. In addition, just like in the last century, the

recognition of abortion as illegal does not change the fact that they will still be performed. Those

women who will not be able to go where abortion is legal will put their lives at risk because they

still want to follow their choice. “The WHO also states that “inaccessibility of quality abortion

care risks violating a range of human rights of women and girls, including the right to life; the

right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to benefit from

scientific progress and its realization; the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number,

spacing and timing of children; and the right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and

degrading treatment and punishment.”(Tran, 2022)

After all, will this have any effect on the similar law in Canada? In Canada, abortion was

decriminalized later than in the States, only in 1988 the Supreme Court approved this law. So

Canadian women better remember what it's like not to have a choice. At the moment, women in

Canada have nothing to fear, but don't be so calm because American women did not expect such

an outcome either. Here I would still pay attention to the words said by Dr. Tami J. Friedman,

Professor of 20th-century U.S. history at Brock University. In her interview with a newspaper

“The Voice of Pelham” from Niagara, Dr. Friedman said that “There are politicians right here in
Niagara who are very vocal about their opposition to abortion. Conservative MP Sam Oosterhoff

has said on record that he hopes to fight to make abortion ‘unthinkable in our lifetime.”

In summarizing all the information above, a clear conclusion can be made about how the

illegality of abortions is linked to the decline of democracy. The adoption of the Roe vs Wade in

the 70s led to the expansion of rights for women, thereby supporting democracy. Nevertheless,

even then it led to the development of polarization on this topic, as well as on state decisions

within the framework of democracy. Now, the repeal of this law has led to even more social

activity among both sides, thereby increasing polarization between Pro-life and Pro-choice. Even

if at the moment this issue does not pose a threat to Canadian society and does not contribute to a

greater development of polarization, there is no guarantee that similar events will not occur here

in the near future and will not create the ground for polarization and a threat to liberal

democracy.

Finally, political polarization is the biggest cause of democratic backsliding. The few

examples shown above prove that political polarization, regardless of its cause, is always an

omen of the collapse of democracy. When a system betrays its principles, there is no possibility

for its existence. As it proves the polarization in the States over Roe vs. Wade or over migration,

not recognizing the problem only exacerbates the situation. If the state does not take any

measures to resolve emerging conflicts, this can lead to the authoritarian state. But if the

authorities adhere to democratic principles, then in the long term they have the opportunity to

return to the former political world within the framework of the state.
References:

 Baviskar, Siddhartha, and Mary Fran T. Malone. “What Democracy Means to Citizens —

and Why It Matters.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, no.

76, Apr. 2004, pp. 3–23. EBSCOhost,

https://dc153.dawsoncollege.qc.ca:2070/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.25676069&site=eds-

live&scope=site

 Blatter, J., ‘Dual citizenship and theories of democracy,’ Citizenship Studies, 15/6–7

(2011), pp. 769–98

 Dahl, R. A. (2022, April 10). democracy. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy

 Dumbrava, C., How Illiberal Are Citizenship Rules in European Union (Fiesole:

European University Institute, 2010), , accessed 5 April 2017

 Everett, J. (2021). Poland and Hungary: Democratic backsliding and the shifting

European political landscape. RUDN Journal of Political Science, 23(3), 394–406. DOI:

10.22363/ 2313-1438-2021-23-3-394-406

 Fladmoe, Audun. “The Nature of Public Opinion on Education in Norway, Sweden and

Finland--Measuring the Degree of Political Polarization at the Mass

Level.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 56, no. 5, Jan. 2012, pp. 457–

79. EBSCOhost, https://dc153.dawsoncollege.qc.ca:2070/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=eric&AN=EJ979555&site=eds-live&scope=site
 Gandhi, Jennifer. “The Institutional Roots of Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of

Politics, vol. 81, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. e11–16. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.1086/700653

 Ginsberg, N.A., Shulman, L.P. Life without Roe v Wade. Contracept Reprod Med 6, 5

(2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-021-00149-6

 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), The

Global State of Democracy 2017: Exploring Democracy’s Resilience (Stockholm:

International IDEA, 2017a), pp. 202-238

 Jennifer Merchant (2006), La fragilité de l'arrêt Roe versus Wade, Med Sci (Paris),

Volume 22, Number 8-9, 773-776 . https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20062289773

 Kunins, H., & Rosenfield, A. (1991). Abortion: a legal and public health

perspective. Annual Review of Public Health, 12, 361–382.

https://dc153.dawsoncollege.qc.ca:2325/10.1146/annurev.pu.12.050191.002045

 Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Penguin Books, 2019.

 Mary Ziegler, Beyond Backlash: Legal History, Polarization, and Roe v. Wade, 71

WASH. & LEE L. REV. 969 (2014), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/326

 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856, 877

(1992)

 Planned Parenthood, Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact(n.d.). Retrieved July 28, 2022,

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf

 Tran, H. (2022, July 8). Analysis: How roe v. Wade was overturned, and what it may

mean for Canada. The Voice of Pelham. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from
 https://thevoiceofpelham.ca/2022/07/08/analysis-how-roe-v-wade-was-overturned-and-

what-it-may-mean-for-canada/

 Mathieu Bonzom, «Donald Trump, un président en guerre contre

l’immigration?», IdeAs [En ligne], 12 | Automne / Hiver 2018, mis en ligne le 26

novembre 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ideas/4445 ; DOI :

https://doi.org/10.4000/ideas.4445

 McLay R and Ramos H (2021) Do Polarization Narratives Apply to Politics on the

Periphery? The Case of Atlantic Canada. Front. Sociol. 6:655880. doi:

10.3389/fsoc.2021.655880

 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 21, 2022,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polarization

 Michael Hout, Christopher Maggio; Immigration, Race & Political

Polarization. Daedalus 2021; 150 (2): 40–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01845

 Milan W. Svolik, Polarization versus democracy. Journal of Democracy. (n.d.). Retrieved

July 21, 2022, from https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/polarization-versus-

democracy/

 Miller, A. H. and Listhaug, O., ‘Political parties and confidence in government: a

comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States’, British Journal of Political

Science, 29/3 (1990), pp. 357–86