Political Polarization and Democratic Legitimacy

Political polarization is undoubtedly increasing in many Western democracies. From the perspective of democratic theory, however, it is an open question how this development should be evaluated. Many liberal commentators fear that polarization not only threatens social cohesion, but also undermines the legitimacy of democratic governance by making cooperation and compromise more difficult and incentivizing divisive, zero-sum politics. This view has recently been challenged by arguments that stress the epistemic value of polarization. Polarized politics might increase democratic legitimacy by making latent social conflicts more visible and enhancing the contrast between political alternatives. In this paper, I will argue that these two assessments only appear to be in conflict. Rather than contradicting each other, they refer to two different forms of polarization - affective and ideological polarization – that have different effects on the legitimacy of democratic governance. Drawing on the political science literature, I will first distinguish between these two types of polarization and then argue from a democratic theory perspective that only affective polarization poses a threat to democracy legitimacy by giving the minority valid reasons to doubt the trustworthiness of the majority. On this basis, I will then consider how democracies should respond to different forms of polarization.