We need political promiscuity and debate with people from the rival tribe

Imagine that your child's new partner sympathizes with political positions that are the opposite of what you think.

Or that your neighbor decides to become a member of that party with ideas opposite to yours.

What would your reaction be?

Would they generate emotions of disgust and rejection or would they rather cause indifference?

It may seem like an anecdotal question, without any significance, more typical of gossip.

However, behind it lies a phenomenon that has been worrying political scientists a lot lately: affective polarization.

We consider that a society is emotionally polarized when citizens feel special sympathy for those who are politically related, but at the same time feel a deep rejection towards those who think differently.

In recent years, political scientists have verified that affective polarization is gaining ground in many of the democracies around us.

Also in Spain.

Visceral, adversary-denial political confrontation may not be so new.

Many will remember how during the first years of the government of the socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, in 2004, the political climate also reached torrid temperatures, with especially belligerent speeches that at the time were described as tension.

However, there are clear signs that the tribalization of politics has reached record levels in recent times, particularly after the breakdown of the two-party system.

More information

Polarization is like drugs: it hooks you

There are plenty of reasons to feel concerned about this growing process of affective polarization.

And it is that the visceral rejection of those who vote or think differently can generate very novice effects for democratic quality.

The tribalization of politics generates instability and blockade, since it blows up cooperation and the options for reaching consensus.

It also causes people to be less tolerant of accepting pluralism, disapproving of discordant voices, which are even perceived as illegitimate and dangerous.

In Spain, the political adversary is increasingly considered a threat to be eliminated.

Those who think differently are described as communists, fascists, philoetarras or coup leaders.

Affective polarization collides with many of the most basic principles of democracy.

After all, if the political adversary is considered to be dangerous and their positions are not legitimate, it is easy to reach the conclusion that their presence in public debate should be vetoed and that they should not reach the institutions at all costs.

In polarized contexts, anyone who approaches, debates or empathizes with someone in the rival trenches can be accused of whitewashing hideous ideologies that threaten our way of life.

For this reason, polarization can erode one of the most basic principles of our system: the consent of the losers.

The essence of democracy is that the people must accept the verdict of the ballot box,

although these exalt political options that are in the antipodes of what one thinks.

However, in contexts of intense polarization, accepting defeat is more costly and painful, sometimes even becoming unaffordable.

Affective polarization fosters a society of closed tribes that avoid any type of contact with rivals.

This inbred behavior is fertile ground for prejudice towards those who have a different opinion, which further accentuates rejection and confrontation.

That is why the best strategy to fight against this phenomenon is to actively promote political promiscuity and try at all costs to debate with people from the rival tribe.

And it is that one of the best recipes to end affective polarization is to go out with those who think differently.

If you have the opportunity, overcome your resistance and do not hesitate to do so.

Subscribe here

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber