Political Polarization and Human Rights Violations

Abstract

Building on the extant literature, this study contends that higher political polarization, wherein opposing individuals or groups engage in hostile interactions over political differences, promotes vilification and a dehumanizing discourse. This in turn leads to an antagonistic and perilous political environment, putting human rights at risk. In such an environment, governments become better capable of prioritizing their political agenda over the rights of particular opposition groups, as these governments are also often supported by their polarized (i.e., entrenched) constituent base. To provide practical insights, this study illustrates Türkiye and Brazil as case examples, as both countries have experienced recent increases in political polarization with potential implications for the erosion of human rights due to a climate of hostility. The study tests the potential relationship between political polarization and human rights violations by employing time-series and cross-national data from the Varieties of Democracy Project (V-Dem) and the CIRI Human Rights Data Project, encompassing over 4,250 observations across more than 165 countries from 1981-2011. Additionally, the study utilizes the recent Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI)’s Physical Integrity Rights Index, which provides data from 2017-2023. Both analyses reveal statistically significant correlations between increased political polarization and reduced respect for human rights. An upward change in political polarization results in lower levels of physical integrity rights. These findings imply that political polarization should be recognized as a serious factor contributing to the potential risks of human rights violations.

Keywords

• Political polarization
• Human rights
• Physical integrity rights
• Human rights violations
• Human rightsabuses

References

1. Amini, S., DeLgado, M.S., Henderson, D.J. & Parmeter, C.F. (2012). Fixed vs Random: The Hausman Test Four Decades Later. In BaLtagi, B.H., Carter HiLL, R., Newey, W.K. & White, H.L. (Eds.) Essays in Honor of Jerry Hausman (Advances in Econometrics, VoL. 29), EmeraLd Group PubLishing Limited, BingLey, pp. 479-513. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-9053(2012)0000029021 google scholar
2. Aydın Düzgit, S. (2019). The IsLamist-SecuLarist divide and Türkiye’s descent into severe poLarization. In T. Carothers & A. O’Donohue (Eds.), Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. google scholar
3. Bae, J. (2022). Human Rights Versus NationaL Security in PubLic Opinion on Foreign Affairs South Korea Views of North Korea 2008-2019. KDI School of Pub Policy & Management Paper. google scholar
4. Barberâ, P. (2020). SoclaL medla, echo chambers, and poLiticaL poLarization. Social media and democracy: The State of the field, prospects for reform,34. google scholar
5. BeLL, A., & Jones, K. (2015). ExpLaining fixed effects: Random effects modeLing of time-series cross-sectionaL and paneL data. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1), 133-153. google scholar
6. “BouLos, G. (2022, September 16). Brazil is suffering a wave of violence. it’s Bolsonaro’s fault. Time. https://time.com/6214070/boLsonaro-poLiticaL-vioLence-braziL-eLection/ google scholar
7. Broockman, D. E., KaLLa, J. L., & Westwood, S. J. (2023). Does affective poLarization undermine democratic norms or accountabiLity? Maybe not. American Journal of Political Science, 67(3), 808-828. google scholar
8. Brook, A. M., CLay, K. C., & RandoLph, S. (2020). Human rights data for everyone: Introducing the human rights measurement initiative (HRMI). Journal of Human Rights, 19(1), 67-82. google scholar

9. Bruneau, E., KteiLy, N., & Laustsen, L. (2018). The unique effects of bLatant dehumanization on attitudes and behavior towards MusLim refugees during the European ‘refugee crisis’ across four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 645-662. google scholar
10. Buyse, A. (2018). Squeezing civic space: restrictions on civiL society organizations and the Linkages with human rights, The International Journal of Human Rights, 22:8, 966-988, DOI: 10.1080/13642987.2018.1492916 google scholar
11. Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013). The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach. Political Behavior, 35, 43-63. google scholar
12. Cassese, E. C. (2021). Partisan dehumanization in American poLitics. Political Behavior, 43, 29-50. google scholar
13. CingraneLLi, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (1999). Measuring human rights, 1945-1998. Human Rights Quarterly, 21(2), 410-461. google scholar
14. CingraneLLi, D. L., & Richards, D. L. (2012). The CIRI human rights dataset. In Human Rights in the United States (pp. 107-128). Springer,Dordrecht. google scholar
15. CLay, K. C., Bakker, R., Brook, A. M., HiLL Jr, D. W., & Murdie, A. (2020). Using practitioner surveys to measure human rights: The Human Rights Measurement Initiative’s civiL and poLiticaL rights metrics. Journal of peace research, 57(6), 715-727. google scholar
16. CLay, K. C., Rains, M., Brook, A.-M., Kehoe-Rowden, T., Singh, P., LaVeLLe, M., Parker, A., & RandoLph, S. (2023). HRMI 2023 AnnuaL Survey & PeopLe Data Report (Version 2023.7.5). Retrieved from https://humanrightsmeasurement.org/methodoLogy-handbook/. google scholar
17. Combs, A., Tierney, G., Guay, B., Merhout, F., BaiL, C. A., HiLLygus, D. S., & VoLfovsky, A. (2023). Reducing poLiticaL poLarization in the United google scholar
18. States with a mobiLe chat pLatform. Nature human behaviour, 7(9), 1454-1461. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01655-0 google scholar
19. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., TeoreLL, J., ALizada, N., ... & ZibLatt, D. (2021). V-Dem Codebook vll.1. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. google scholar
20. CordeLL, C., Finan, F., Kramon, E., & Robinson, A. (2022). Elections, violence, and human rights in sub-Saharan Africa. Cambridge Univer-sity Press. google scholar
21. Cox, N. J. (2005). Speaking Stata: Smoothing in various directions. The Stata Journal, 5(4), 574-593. google scholar
22. Crimston, C. R., SeLvanathan, H. P., & Jetten, J. (2022). MoraL poLarization predicts support for authoritarian and progressive strong Lead-ers via the perceived breakdown of society. Political Psychology, 43(4), 671-691. google scholar
23. Dagnes, A., & Dagnes, A. (2019). Us vs. them: PoLiticaL poLarization and the poLiticization of everything. Super Mad at Everything All the Time: Political Media and Our National Anger, 119-165. google scholar
24. Davenport, C. (1995). MuLti-dimensionaL threat perception and state repression: An inquiry into why states appLy negative sanctions. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 683-713. google scholar
25. DonneLLy, J. (2008). Human Rights. In J. S. Dryzek, B. Honig, & A. PhiLLips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (pp. 601-20). New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
26. Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for SeriaL CorreLation in Linear PaneL-data ModeLs. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1536867X0300300206 google scholar
27. European Center for PopuLism Studies (ECPS). (n.d.). Dehumanization. Retrieved March 3, 2024, from https://www.popuLismstudies.org/ VocabuLary/dehumanization/#:~:text=Dehumanization%20is%20the%20act%20of,is%20an%20act%20of%20dehumanization. google scholar
28. FaioLa, A., & Sâ Pessoa, G. (2022, October 28). The CannibaL vs. the Satanist: Toxic PoLitics Is Poisoning BraziL. Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/worLd/2022/10/28/braziL-eLection-LuLa-boLsonaro/ google scholar
29. Fine, J. A., & Hunt, M. F. (2023). Negativity and eLite message diffusion on sociaL media. Political Behavior, 45(3), 955-973. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11109-021-09740-8 google scholar
30. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). InternationaL norm dynamics and poLiticaL change. International organization, 52(4), 887-917. google scholar
31. GiLLani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018, ApriL). Me, my echo chamber, and I: introspection on sociaL media poLar-ization. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (pp. 823-831). google scholar
32. Gurr, T. R. (1986). The poLiticaL origins of state vioLence and terror: a theoreticaL anaLysis. pp. 45-71 in M. StohL and G. A. Lopez (eds.) Gov-ernment Violence and Repression: An Agenda for Research. New York: Greenwood. google scholar
33. Hanushek, E. A., & Jackson, J. E. (2013). Statistical methods for social scientists. Academic Press. google scholar
34. HareL, T. O., Jameson, J. K., & Maoz, I. (2020). The NormaLization of Hatred: Identity, Affective PoLarization, and Dehumanization on Face-book in the Context of IntractabLe PoLiticaL Conflict. Social Media+ Society, 6(2). google scholar
35. HeLLström, J. (2019). Dehumanization in Everyday Politics : A study of discursive dehumanization of beggars on social media [master’s thesis]. UppsaLa University. https://www.diva-portaL.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1282776&dswid=-456 google scholar
36. Henderson, C. (1991). Conditions Affecting the Use of PoLiticaL Repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution 35:120-42. google scholar
37. Henderson, C. (1993). PopuLation Pressures and PoLiticaL Repression. Social Science Quarterly 74:322-33. google scholar
38. HoLst, P. (2020). Us and Them: Experiences with Polarization Dynamics from the Perspective of Black Migrant Communities in The Nether-lands [master’s thesis]. Radboud University. https://theses.ubn.ru.nL/items/34c91b08-6852-46f8-bc91-fa37ebfd978a google scholar
39. Huber, P. J. (1967). Under nonstandard conditions. In Proceedings of the Fifth BerkeLey Symposium on MathematicaL Statistics and Prob-abiLity: Weather Modification; University of California Press: BerkeLey, CA, USA (p. 221). google scholar
40. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American journal of political science, 59(3), 690-707. google scholar
41. Judge, M., Kashima, Y., Steg, L., & Dietz, T. (2023). EnvironmentaL Decision-Making in Times of PoLarization. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 477-503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321115339 google scholar
42. KteiLy, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & CotteriLL, S. (2015). The ascent of man: TheoreticaL and empiricaL evidence for bLatant dehumaniza-tion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 109(5), 901. google scholar LeLkes, Y., & Westwood, S. J. (2017). The Limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 485-501. google scholar
43. Linden, M., BjörkLund, F., & Backström, M. (2016). What makes authoritarian and sociaLLy dominant peopLe more positive to using torture in the war on terrorism?. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 98-101. google scholar
44. Maoz, I., & McCauLey, C. (2008). Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaLiatory aggressive poLicies in asymmetric conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(1), 93-116. google scholar
45. MarcouLides, K. M., & Raykov, T. (2019). EvaLuation of Variance Inflation Factors in Regression ModeLs Using Latent VariabLe ModeLing Methods. Educatlonal and psychologı’cal measurement, 79(5), 874-882. https://doi.org/l0.1177/0013164418817803 google scholar
46. MarshaLL, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2009). PoLity IV project, poLiticaL regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2007, dataset users’ manu-aL. Center for Systemlc Peace. google scholar
47. Martherus, J. L., Martinez, A. G., Piff, P. K., & Theodoridis, A. G. (2021). Party animaLs? Extreme partisan poLarization and dehumaniza-tion. Polltlcal Behavlor, 43, 517-540. google scholar
48. McCoy, J., & Somer, M. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious poLarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possibLe remedies. The Annals of the Amerlcan Academy of Polltlcal and Soclal Sclence, 681(1), 234-271. google scholar
49. McNeiL-WiLLson, R., Gerrand, V., Scrinzi, F., & TriandafyLLidou, A. (2019). Polarlsatlon, vlolent extremlsm and reslllence ln Europe today: An analytlcal framework. BRaVE Project. Retrieved from https://hdL.handLe.net/1814/65664. google scholar
50. Mignozzetti, U., & Spektor, M. (2019). BraziL: When PoLiticaL OLigarchies Limit PoLarization but FueL PopuLism. In T. Carothers & A. O’Dono-hue (Eds.), Democracles Dlvlded: The Global Challenge of Polltlcal Polarlzatlon (pp. 228-256). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. google scholar
51. MitcheLL, N, J., & McCormick, J. M. (1988). Economic and PoLiticaL ExpLanations of Human Rights VioLations. World Polltlcs 40:476-98. google scholar
52. Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbLes. Eplsteme, 17(2), 141-161. google scholar
53. Pemstein, D., Marquardt, K. L., TzeLgov, E., Wang, Y. T., KruseLL, J., & Miri, F. (2018). The V-Dem measurement modeL: Latent variabLe anaLysis for cross-nationaL and cross-temporaL expert-coded data. V-Dem worklng paper, 21. google scholar
54. Piazza, J. A. (2020). PoLitician hate speech and domestic terrorism. Internatlonal Interactlons, 46(3), 431-453. google scholar
55. Piazza, J. A. (2023). PoLiticaL poLarization and poLiticaL vioLence. Securlty Studles, 32(3), 476-504. google scholar
56. Poe, S. C., & Tate, C. N. (1994). Repression of Human Rights to PersonaL Integrity in the 1980s: A GLobaL AnaLysis. Amerlcan Polltlcal Sclence Revlew 88, no. 4: 853-72. google scholar
57. QueensLand Human Rights Commission (QHRC). (n.d.). ViLification. Retrieved March 3, 2024, from https://www.qhrc.qLd.gov.au/your-rights/discrimination-Law/viLification google scholar
58. Rains, M., CLay, K. C., Bakker, R., Brook, A.-M., HiLL, D. W., LaVeLLe, M., & Murdie, A. (2023). HRMI CiviL and PoLiticaL Rights Metrics 2023 TechnicaL Note (Version 2023.7.5). Retrieved from https://humanrightsmeasurement.org/methodoLogy-handbook/ google scholar
59. Renshaw, C. S. (2012). NationaL Human Rights Institutions and CiviL Society Organizations: New Dynamics of Engagement at Domestic, RegionaL, and InternationaL LeveLs. Global Governance, 18(3), 299-316. google scholar
60. Roy, D., & Baumgartner, S. (2023, January 12). Images show the extent of BraziL’s CapitoL Riots. Councll on Forelgn Relatlons. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/articLe/images-show-extent-braziLs-capitoL-riots google scholar
61. SchedLer, A. (2023). Rethinking PoLiticaL PoLarization. Polltlcal Sclence Quarterly, 138(3), 335-359. google scholar
62. Shrestha, N. (2020). Detecting muLticoLLinearity in regression anaLysis. Amerlcan Journal of Applled Mathematlcs and Statlstlcs, 8(2), 39-42. google scholar S0rensen, E., & AnseLL, C. (2023). Towards a concept of poLiticaL robustness. Polltı'cal Studles, 71 (i), 69-88. google scholar
63. Sundstrom, L. (2005). PhysicaL integrity rights and the internationaL criminaL court. The Amerlcan Journal of Internatlonal Law, 99(2), 460-482. google scholar
64. Terren, L., & Borge-Bravo, R. (2021). Echo Chambers on SociaL Media: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Revlew of Communlcatlon Research, 9, 99-118. google scholar
65. The WorLd Bank. (2012). The WorLd Bank DeveLopment Indicators (WDI). google scholar
66. Themner, L., & WaLLensteen, P. (2012). Armed Conflicts, 1946-2011. Journal of Peace Research 49 (4): 565-75. google scholar
67. TibbLes, M., & MeLse, E. (2023). A note on creating inset pLots using graph twoway. The Stata Journal, 23(1), 265-275. google scholar
68. TiLLy, C. (1985). War making and state making as organized crime. Cambridge: BLackweLL. google scholar
69. TurkuazLab. (2017). Dimensions of PoLarization in Türkiye in 2017. Strategies for Mitigating Polarization. Retrieved from https://www.turkuazLab.org/en/dimensions-of-poLarization-in-Türkiye-2017/ google scholar
70. TurkuazLab. (2020). Dimensions of PoLarization in Türkiye in 2020. Strategies for Mitigating Polarization. Retrieved from https://www. turkuazLab.org/en/dimensions-of-poLarization-in-Türkiye-2020/ google scholar
71. United Nations. GeneraL AssembLy. (1949). Universal declaration of human rights (VoL. 3381). Department of State, United States of America. google scholar
72. USAID. (2016). Human Rights Landscape Analysis Tool: Guidance on Identifying Key Issues and Entry Points for Human Rights Program-ming. Washington, DC: USAID. google scholar
73. VaLLier, K. (2023). The EmotionaL Decay of LiberaLism: Trust, PoLarization, and Affective Looping. In Realism, Ideology, and the Convulsions of Democracy (pp. 65-81). Cham: Springer Nature SwitzerLand. google scholar
74. VezzaLi, L., Capozza, D., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 437-440. google scholar
75. VoLpato, C., & Andrighetto, L. (2015). Dehumanization. In Wright, J.D., International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 31-37). Amsterdam: ELsevier, Inc. google scholar
76. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 817-838. google scholar
77. Wirtschafter, V. (2022, November 9). After a victory for democracy, what is BraziL’s road ahead? Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/ articLes/after-a-victory-for-democracy-what-is-braziLs-road-ahead/ google scholar
78. WoLff, A. W., & Maruyama, W. (2023). Saving the WTO from the NationaL Security Exception. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper, No. 23-2. google scholar
79. Yair, O. (2020). A note on the affective poLarization Literature. Available at SSRN 3771264. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3771264 google scholar
80. Yildiz, A. (2023). Prior RebeL Experience of Leaders and Its Influence on PhysicaL Integrity Rights. Aurum JournaL of SociaL Sciences, 8(2),173-196. https://doi.org/10.62393/aurum.1329167 google scholar