Protective factors

gies, not only should ‘pushers’ of polarisation be identified, but also individuals who can act as potential ‘bridge builders’, ‘bridging agents’ or ‘resource people’ within communities. These are individuals who might not yet be involved in controversies or polarising discourses, but possess public confidence and the ability to engage with diverse parties, groups, and communities. Measures to foster community resilience and reduce destructive polarisation can build on the mobilisation of such figures, who should be involved in identifying preventive and mitigative activities and receive training and systemic support.

Protective factors

Local networks, in particular, associations that play an active role in communal, social and cultural life, partnerships and restorative justice practices can help counter polarisation at the local level as they contribute to re-establishing or maintaining just relations, trust, connections and dialogue: all factors that enhance social cohesion, community resilience and citizens’ well-being. Local authorities should provide resources to support these protective factors because they go a long way to prevent or mitigate polarisation. To do so, they first need to identify them locally and assess how they play out. As such, the assessment of protective factors should focus on: 1. The informal and formal structures of local communities and neighbourhoods that address social and political concerns, such as local crime prevention councils, and these structures’ communication and coordination capacities that can help foster social bonds, mediate conflicts and support vulnerable people. 2. The preparedness of public institutions to elicit, engage, address and respond to local concerns and conflicts. 3. The already active or potential resource people/bridge builders who are seen as legitimate mediators across social groups. Once the patterns and functioning of the protective factors have been assessed, information can be gathered about how they are viewed by local residents: are they deemed as well functioning and effective or do

residents rather think that they require support, strengthening or re-organisation? When collecting responses, the representation and active participation of citizens should be guaranteed, or at least representative percentages of the local social sub-groups, which will have previously been identified. The following questions could be asked: what are those networks and partnerships that are well functioning? Why can they function effectively? What is missing and what should be changed/reformed?

II. Selection of audit tools

The suggested tools aim to identify, affirm and strengthen protective factors as well as to decrease risk factors.

A mixed-methods approach is recommended for auditing polarisation to enable municipalities to capture a snapshot of polarisation from many angles, for example using both qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative methods (analysis of existing data, dissemination of questionnaires). Mixing of these methods creates a broader and deeper picture of polarisation based on empirical evidence. Integrating existing demographic data with newly generated quantitative data increases the benefits of previous investments, enables review of data collection processes for improvement and augments existing databases for ongoing monitoring and policy planning. Organising focus groups and interviews generates new insights and can initiate the process of building and strengthening social cohesion. However, bringing together people with different viewpoints requires careful planning to prevent the perpetuation and further entrenchment of polarised viewpoints and narratives among opposing groups and participants.