Polarisation as used throughout this publication

Polarisation as used throughout this publication

Building upon these preliminary definitions and distinctions, it is important to refine the term’s scope as used throughout this publication. The polarisation of ideologies does not necessarily mean the polarisation of individuals. In a political context where the public agenda can be fractured around two main blocks, society is not necessarily polarised at the level of individuals. Polarisation is not limited to the margins of society but can be rooted in mainstream society. The so-called ‘extremism of the centre’, as expressed for instance in the role of populist parties in governments, is a relatively new phenomenon. As recent political developments in

Europe have shown, some elected officials engage deliberately in divisive and antagonistic discourses and actions and thus initiate or reinforce dynamics of polarisation. A fundamental structural dimension strongly influences polarisation and, in particular, radicalisation. The exclusion of stakeholders and citizens from public debates, playing fields, decision-making processes or negotiation tables marginalises the excluded groups. The integrative ability of democracies to institutionalise social conflict through a regulated process allowing for the opposing of ideas and values has guaranteed a certain order and stability. Nevertheless, misrepresenting and discriminating against segments of the population can have severe detrimental effects as it can lead to an erosion of social cohesion and fuel polarisation processes. In this sense, it is crucial to address structural deficits by producing ‘polarisation prevention mechanisms’ to reduce discrimination and improve social cohesion, including democratic and civic participation, and reduce inequalities, including health inequalities that lower well-being and resilience. Well-being and resilience operate as protective factors that enable civic participation to increase social cohesion.