Political violence poses an alarming threat to contemporary democracies and is often attributed to rising polarization. This paper investigates how democratic institutions moderate the relationship between identity-based polarization and violence, hypothesizing that this relationship depends upon a country’s institutional structure. Studying 113 democracies over time (1900−2023), we find that while identity-based polarization is associated with political violence, democracies with a federal structure and a rigid constitution show a significantly weaker relationship between polarization and violence. These results offer a rare positive perspective within polarization studies, showing that violence – polarization’s worst threat to democratic peaceful coexistence – is related to the institutional organization of conflict in society.
AngiolilloFabioLundstedtMartinNordMarinaLindbergStaffan I (2024) State of the World 2023: Democracy winning and losing at the ballot. Democratization31(8): 1597–1621.
2.
BanduraAlbert (1999) Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review3(3): 193–209.
BernaertsKamilBlanckaertBenjaminCaluwaertsDidier (2023) Institutional Design and Polarization. Do consensus democracies fare better in fighting polarization than majoritarian democracies?Democratization30(2): 153–172.
5.
BerntzenLars ErikKelsallHayleeHarteveldEelco (2024) Consequences of Affective Polarization: Avoidance, intolerance and support for violence in the United Kingdom and Norway. European Journal of Political Research63(3): 927–949.
6.
BettarelliLucaReiljanAndresVan HauteEmilie (2022) A Regional Perspective to the Study of Affective Polarization. European Journal of Political Research62(2): 645–659.
7.
Bingham PowellGeorge (1982) Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8.
CaluwaertsDidierReuchampsMin (2015) Combining Federalism with Consociationalism: Is Belgian consociational federalism digging its own grave?Ethnopolitics14(3): 277–295.
9.
CapraraGian VittorioFidaRobertaVecchioneMicheleTramontanoCarloBarbaranelliClaudio (2009) Assessing Civic Moral Disengagement: Dimensionality and construct validity. Personality and Individual Differences47(5): 504–509.
10.
CasseseErin C (2021) Partisan Dehumanization in American Politics. Political Behavior43(1): 29–50.
CoppedgeMichael (2018) Rethinking Consensus vs. Majoritarian Democracy (V-Dem Working Paper 2018:78).
13.
DoucetteJonathan Stavnskær (2024) What Can We Learn about the Effects of Democracy Using Cross-National Data?American Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 10 December 2024. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055424001278.
14.
DuvergerMaurice (1964) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.
15.
FjeldeHanneHöglundKristine (2016) Electoral Institutions and Electoral Violence in Sub-Saharan Africa. British Journal of Political Science46(2): 297–320.
16.
FjeldeHanneKnutsenCarl HenrikNygårdHåvard Mokleiv (2021) Which Institutions Matter? Re-considering the democratic civil peace. International Studies Quarterly65(1): 223–237.
17.
GaleaSandroKarpatiAdamKennedyBruce (2002) Social Capital and Violence in the United States, 1974–1993. Social Science & Medicine55(8): 1373–1383.
18.
Gøtzsche-AstrupOluf (2021) Dark Triad, Partisanship and Violent Intentions in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences173(4): 110633.
19.
HainmuellerJensMummoloJonathanXuYiqing (2019) How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis27(2): 163–192.
20.
HarteveldEelco (2021) Ticking All the Boxes? A comparative study of social sorting and affective polarization. Electoral Studies72(2): 102337.
21.
HöglundKristine (2009) Electoral Violence in Conflict-Ridden Societies: Concepts, causes, and consequences. Terrorism and Political Violence21(3): 412–427.
22.
HoogheLiesbetMarksGarySchakelArjan H (2010) The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Democracies. London: Routledge.
23.
HorneWillAdamsJamesGidronNoam (2022) The Way We Were: How histories of co-governance alleviate partisan hostility. Comparative Political Studies56(3): 299–325.
24.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J (2019) The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22(1): 129–146.
25.
IyengarShantoSoodGauravLelkesYphtach (2012) Affect, Not Ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 405–431.
26.
KalmoeNathan PMasonLilliana (2022) Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
27.
KarpJeffrey ABanducciSusan A (2008) Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science38(2): 311–334.
28.
KarstedtSusanne (2006) Democracy, Values, and Violence: Paradoxes, tensions, and comparative advantages of liberal inclusion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science605(1): 50–81.
29.
KingzetteJonDruckmanJames NKlarSamaraKrupnikovYannaLevenduskyMatthewRyanJohn Barry (2021) How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Democratic Norms. Public Opinion Quarterly85(2): 663–677.
30.
KleinfeldRachelSedacaNicole Bibbins (2024) How to Prevent Political Violence. Journal of Democracy35(4): 35–45.
31.
KnutsenCarl HenrikMarquardtKyle LSeimBrigitteCoppedgeMichaelEdgellAmanda BMedzihorskyJurajPemsteinDanielTeorellJanGerringJohnLindbergStaffan I (2024) Conceptual and Measurement Issues in Assessing Democratic Backsliding. PS - Political Science and Politics57(2): 162–177.
32.
KteilyNourBruneauEmile (2017) Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin43(1): 87–104.
33.
LawsonK (1997) The Case for a Multiparty System. In HerrnsonPSGreenJC (eds) Multiparty Politics in America (People, Passions and Power). New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield, 31–44.
34.
LijphartArendt (1990) Electoral Systems, Party Systems and Conflict Management in Segmented Societies. In SchreirerRA (ed.) Critical Choices for South Africa: An Agenda for the 1990s. Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 2–13.
35.
LijphartArend (2012) Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 2nd edn.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
LührmannAnnaTannenbergMarcusLindbergStaffan I (2018) Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance6(1): 60–77.
37.
MarquardtKyle LPemsteinDaniel (2018) IRT Models for Expert-Coded Panel Data. Political Analysis26(4): 431–456.
38.
MartherusJames LMartinezAndres GPiffPaul KTheodoridisAlexander G (2021) Party Animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior43(2): 517–540.
39.
MasonLilliana (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
40.
McCoyJenniferRahmanTahminaSomerMurat (2018) Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist62(1): 16–42.
41.
MernykJoseph SPinkSophia LDruckmanJames NWillerRobb (2022) Correcting Inaccurate Metaperceptions Reduces Americans’ Support for Partisan Violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America119(16): e2116851119.
42.
MontalvoJosé GReynal-QuerolMarta (2005) Ethnic Polarization, Potential Conflict, and Civil Wars. The American Economic Review95(3): 796–816.
43.
OrhanYunus Emre (2022) The Relationship between Affective Polarization and Democratic Backsliding: Comparative evidence. Democratization29(4): 714–735.
44.
ØstbyGudrun (2008) Polarization, Horizontal Inequalities and Violent Civil Conflict. Journal of Peace Research45(2): 143–162.
45.
PiazzaJames A (2023) Political Polarization and Political Violence. Security Studies32(3): 476–504.
46.
ReiljanAndres (2020) ‘Fear and Loathing across Party Lines’ (Also) in Europe: Affective polarisation in European party systems. European Journal of Political Research59(2): 376–396.
47.
RenströmEmma ABäckHannaCarrollRoyce (2023) Threats, Emotions, and Affective Polarization. Political Psychology44(6): 1337–1366.
48.
Reynal-QuerolMarta (2005) Does Democracy Preempt Civil Wars?European Journal of Political Economy21(2): 445–465.
49.
RubinMichael AMorganRichard K (2021) Terrorism and the Varieties of Civil Liberties. Journal of Global Security Studies6(3): ogaa032.
50.
ShiehGwowen (2009) Detecting Interaction Effects in Moderated Multiple Regression with Continuous Variables Power and Sample Size Considerations. Organizational Research Methods12(3): 510–528.
51.
SomerMuratJenniferMcCoyRussellLuke (2021) Pernicious Polarization, Autocratization and Opposition Strategies. Democratization28(5): 929–948.
52.
SommetNicolasWeissmanDavid LCheutinNicolasElliotAndrew J (2023) How Many Participants Do I Need to Test an Interaction? Conducting an Appropriate Power Analysis and Achieving Sufficient Power to Detect an Interaction. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science6(3): 1–21.
53.
StavrakakisYannis (2018) Paradoxes of Polarization: Democracy’s inherent division and the (anti-) populist challenge. American Behavioral Scientist62(1): 43–58.
54.
TajfelHenriTurnerJC (1979) An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 33–47.
55.
TappinBen MMcKayRyan T (2019) Moral Polarization and Out-Party Hostility in the US Political Context. Journal of Social and Political Psychology7(1): 213–245.
56.
WagnerMarkus (2021) Affective Polarization in Multiparty Systems. Electoral Studies69: 102199.
57.
WestwoodSean JGrimmerJustinTylerMatthewNallClaytonLeviMargaret (2022) Current Research Overstates American Support for Political Violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America119(12): e2116870119.
58.
WestwoodSean JIyengarShantoWalgraveStefaanLeonisioRafaelMillerLuisStrijbisOliver (2018) The Tie That Divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research57(2): 333–354.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
