SHARP POLARIZATION AND ITS EFFECTS ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

Öz

With the rise of populism, sharp polarization came to the fore again. Polarization seems to be a phenomenon that we encounter in every society in every period. However, it becomes a serious risk for democracies when polarization sharpens in democracies, when the political-social distance between social segments widens and when it eliminates the cooperation and reconciliation necessary for coexistence. Democratic politics can come to life in an environment where conflicts in society turn into competition by agreeing on clear and well-defined rules. On the other hand, polarization brutalizes conflict and turns it into an us-and-them war that operates in the friend-enemy category. The identity of "we" becomes the carrier of the good, the truth, the virtue, the morality, the righteous, the threatened, the victim, the superior, the valuable. The identity of "they" is made the address of evil, immorality, unqualified, cruelty, injustice, worthlessness and evil. It turns the politics of sharp polarization into a war of existence and extinction. Thus, the space for democratic politics becomes narrower and perhaps disappears altogether and to return more and more difficult to democratic politics. Therefore, it becomes vital to recognize polarization, understand its causes and symptoms, and most importantly, be aware of its destructive effects on democratic politics and the system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Political polarization
• Symptoms of polarization
• Antagonistic politics
• Agonistic politics
• Democratic politic

Keskin Siyasi Kutuplaşma ve Demokratik Siyasete Olumsuz Etkileri

Öz

Popülizmin yükselişiyle birlikte keskin kutuplaşma yeniden gündeme geldi. Kutuplaşma her dönemde her toplumda karşımıza çıkan bir olgu gibi görünüyor. Ne var ki, kutuplaşma keskinleştiğinde, sosyal kesimler arasında siyasi-sosyal mesafe iyice açıldığında ve birlikte yaşamak için gerekli işbirliği ve uzlaşmayı tahrip ettiği durumlarda demokrasiler için ciddi bir risk haline gelmektedir. Demokratik siyaset toplumda var olan çatışmanın, açık ve iyi tanımlanmış kurallar üzerinde uzlaşılarak rekabete dönüştürüldüğü bir iklimde hayat bulabilir. Buna karşın kutuplaşma çatışmayı vahşileştirerek, dost-düşman kategorisinde işleyen “biz” ve “onlar” savaşına dönüştürür. “Biz” kimliği iyinin, doğrunun, haklılığın, ahlakiliğin, tehdit altında olmanın, mağduriyetin, üstün ve değerli olmanın taşıyıcı haline gelir. “Onlar” ise kötülüğün, ahlaksızlığın, niteliksizliğin, zalimliğin, adaletsizliğin, değersizliğin ve kötülüğün adresi haline getirilir. Keskin kutuplaşma siyaseti var-oluş ve yok-oluş savaşına çevirir. Böylece demokratik siyaset için alan gittikçe daralır, belki tümden ortadan kalkar ve demokratik siyasete dönüş gittikçe zor bir hale gelir. Bu nedenle kutuplaşmayı tanımak, nedenlerini ve semptomlarını anlamak ve en önemlisi demokratik siyaset ve sistem üzerindeki tahrip edici etkilerinin farkında olmak hayati bir hale gelmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Siyasi kutuplaşma
• Kutuplaşmanın semptomları
• Antagonistik siyaset
• Agonistik siyaset
• Demokratik siyaset

Kaynakça

1. AKKERMAN, Agnes.&Cas Mudde&Andrej Zaslove. (2013) “How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters”, Comparative Political Studies. 20(10): 1–30
2. BALDASSARRI, Delia.&Peter Bearman (2007) “Dynamics of Political Polarization” American Sociological Review.72: 784–811
3. BANDURA, Albert. (1999) “Moral Disengagement in The Perpetration of Inhumanities”, Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3: 193–209
4. BAR-TAL, Daniel&Tamir Magol. (2021) “Socio-Psychological Analysis of the Deterioration of Democracy and the Rise of Authoritarianism: The Role of Needs, Values, and Context”, The Psychology Of Populism: The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. Edited by Joseph P. Forgas, William D. Crano, and Klaus Fiedler,New York: Routledge, pp.42-61
5. BELAVADI, Sucharita&Hogg, M. A. (2018) “We are victims! How Observers Evaluate A Group’s Claim Of Collective Victimhood”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 48: 651–660
6. BERMEO, Nancy. (2003) “Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and The Breakdown of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
7. BREWER, Marilynn B. (1999) “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?”. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3): 429–444
8. COSER, Levis A. (1956) The Functions Of Social Conflict. Glencoe, IL: Free Press

9. Dahl, Robert A. (1989) Democracy and its Critics: New Haven: Yale University Press
10. DIAMOND, Larry, (1990) “Three Paradoxes of Democracy”, Journal of Democracy. 1(3): 48-60
11. DiMAGGIO, Paul&John Evans&Bethany Bryson. (1996) “Have Americans’ Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?”, American Journal of Sociology. 102:690–755
12. FIORINA, Morris P.&Samuel J. Abrams&Jeremy C. Pope. (2005) Culture Wars? The Myth of Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman
13. GARRETT, R. K.&Gvirsman, S. D.& vd. (2014) “Implications of pro- and Counterattitudinal Information Exposure for Affective Polarization”, Human Communication Research. 40(3): 309–332
14. GELFAND, Michaele J.&Raver J. L.& vd. (2011) “Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation study”, Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197754
15. GOLEC DE ZVALA, A.&Lantos, D. (2020) “Collective Narcissism And its Social Consequences: The Bad And The Ugly”, Current Directions in Psychological Science. 29: 273–278
16. HARARI, Y. N. (2014) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London: Random House
17. HETHERINGTON, Marc J., & Roush, C. E. (2013) “Perceiving the Other Side: Toward a New Understanding of Mass Polarization”, Paper presented at the 61st Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
18. HIRSCHMAN, Albert O. (1991). The Rhetoric of Reaction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
19. HOGG, Michael A. (2001) “A Social Identity Theory of Leadership”. Personality and Soial Psychology Revew. 5(3): 184–200
20. HOGG, Michael A. &John M. Levine. (2010) Encyclopedia of Group Prosses and Intergroup Relations, Sage Publication
21. HOGG, Michael A.&Oluf Gøtzsche-Astrup. (2021) “Self-Uncertainty and Populism: Why We Endorse Populist Ideologies, Identify With Populist Groups, and Support Populist Leaders”, The Psychology of Populism: The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. Edited by Joseph P. Forgas, William D. Crano, and Klaus Fiedler,New York: Routledge, pp. 197-218 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336830321_Polarized_Democracies_in_Comparative_Perspective_Toward_a_Conceptual_Framework
22. IYENGAR, Shanto et al., (2019) “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States,” Annual Review of Political Science. 22(1): 129–146
23. IYENGAR, Shanto&Gaurav Sood&Yphtach Lelkes. (2012) “Affect, not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization”, Public Opinion Quarterly. 76(3): 405–431
24. KRUEGER, Joachim I.&David J. Grüning. (2021) “Psychological Perversities and Populism”, The Psychology Of Populism: The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. Edited by Joseph P. Forgas, William D. Crano, and Klaus Fiedler,New York: Routledge, pp. 125-142
25. JOST, John T.&Stern, C., Rule, N. O.& Sterling, J. (2017). “The Politics Of Fear: Is There An İdeological Asymmetry in Existential Motivation?”, Social Cognition. 35: 324–353.
26. YANG, JungHwan &Hernando Rojas vd.(2016) “Why Are “Others” So Polarized? Perceived Political Polarization and Media Use in 10 Countries”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica, 21(5): 349-367
27. KREKÓ, Péter. (2021) “Populism in Power, The Tribal Challenge”, Psychology of Populism: The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. Edited by Joseph P. Forgas, William D. Crano, and Klaus Fiedler, New York: Routledge, pp. 240-257
28. LEVENDUSKY, Matthew S. (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats And Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
29. LEWIN, Kurt. (1947) “Group Decision And Social Change”, Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1): 197–211
30. LIPSET, S. Martin. (1959) “Some Social Requisites of Democracy, Development, and Politics”, American Political Science Review. 53: 69–106
31. LOZADA, Mireya. (2014) “Us versus Them: Social Representation and the Imaginaries of Other in Venezuela”, Papers on Social Representations. 23: 21.1-21.16
32. LUPU, Noam. (2013) “Party Brands And Partisanship: Theory With Evidence From A Survey Experiment in Argentina”, American Journal of Political Science. 57(1): 49–64
33. MAINWARING, S., & Scully, T. R. (1995) “Introduction: Party systems in Latin America”, Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Edited by S. Mainwaring & T. R. Scully. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 1–34
34. LEVENDUSKY, Matthew S. &Neil Malhotra (2015) “(Mis)Perceptıons of Partisan Polarization in The American Public”, Public Opinion Quarterly. 80(1): 378-391
35. McCOY, Jennifer&Murat Somer. (2019) “Toward a Theory of Pernicious Polarization and How It Harms Democracies: Comparative Evidence and Possible Remedies”, ANNALS, AAPSS, 681, pp. 234-271
36. McCOY, Jennifer&Rahman, Tahmina. (2016) “Polarized Democracies in Comparative Perspective: Toward A Conceptual Framework”, Paper Presented at the Southern Political Science Association Conference. New Orleans
37. McCOY, Jennifer&Tahmina Rahman&Murat Somer. (2018) “Polarization And The Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, And Pernicious Consequences For Democratic Polities”, American Behavioral Scientist. 62(1): 16–42
38. GELFAND ,Michele J.&Rebecca Lorente (2021) “Threat, Tightness, and the Evolutionary Appeal of Populist Leaders”, Edited by Joseph P. Forgas, William D. Crano, and Klaus Fiedler, Psychology of Populism: The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. New York: Routledge, pp.276-294
39. MOUFFE, Chantal. (2013) Siyasî Üzerine, çev. Mehmet Ratip. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
40. MUDDE, Cas & Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. (2017) Populism: A Very Short Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press
41. PRZEWORSKI, Adam. (1986) “Some Problems in The Study of Transition to Democracy”, Edited by Guillermo O’Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter and Lawrence Whitehead, Transition from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspective. USA: The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp.47-63
42. SANI, G.,&Sartori, G. (1983) “Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies”, In D. Hans & M. Peter (Eds.), Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 307-340
43. SARTORI, Giovanni. (2005 [1976]) Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge University Press.
44. SCHMITT, Carl. (2014) Parlamenter Demokrasinin Krizi, çev. A.E. Zeybekoğlu, Ankara: Dost Yayınları
45. SLATER, Dan. (2013) “Democratic Careening”, World Politics. 65(4): 729–63
46. SOMER, Murat, (2016) “Religious versus Secular and Power Sharing versus Hegemonizing Politics and Polarization in Turkey”, Memo prepared for Polarized Politics Workshop, Georgia State University, March 14-15, 2016, Atlanta, GA
47. STAVRAKAKIS, Yannis. (2018) “Paradoxes of Polarization: Democracy’s Inherent Division and the (Anti-) Populist Challenge”, American Behavioral Scientist. 62(1): 1-16
48. SUNSTEIN, C. R. (2007) Republic.Com 2.0., Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univeristy Press
49. TAJFEL, Henri. (1970) “Experiments İn İntergroup Discrimination.” Scientific American. 223(5): 96–102
50. TAJFEL, Henri & Forgas, J. P. (2000) Social categorization: Cognitions, values and groups. In C. Stangor (Ed.), Key readings in social psychology. Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 49–63
51. ZSOLT, Enedy. (2005) “The Role of Agency in Cleavage Formation”, European Journal of Political Research. 44: 697-720
52. PETTIGREW, Thomas F.&Linda R. Torpp (2006) “A Meta-Analytic Test of Inter-Group Theory”, Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 90(5): 751-783
53. McPHERSON, Miller.&Lynn Smith-Lovin &James M. Cook. (2001) “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks”, Annual Review of Sociology. 27(1): 415-444
54. ULSANER, Eric M. and Mictheel Brown, (2005) “Inequality, Trust and Civic Engagement”, American Politics Research. 33(6): 868-894