Extreme political polarization has a global reach.
In Argentina, this phenomenon was baptized "grieta".
However, it is far from being something new, since it has its roots in history.
Since the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, when access to free suffrage was at stake, the dispute was between conservatives and radicals.
In the same way, after the 1943 coup d'état and the rise of Juan Domingo Perón as a leader of the masses, the confrontation had the leading role of Peronists and anti-Peronists.
Following the brutal logic of yesteryear, 15 years ago the political, symbolic and discursive fight pitted Kirchnerists and anti-Kirchnerists against each other.
There is a relative agreement on the origin of the antinomy: March 2008, with the creation of resolution 125 of mobile withholdings to agricultural production.
Throughout three decades, occupying the top of government power or the plains of the opposition, one and the other transformed the resource of ideological polarization - inevitable, valid and understandable in circumstances of electoral dispute -, into a system of absolute and permanent that transcends the doctrinal sphere.
Perhaps with less intensity compared to what happens in other latitudes, the two national coalitions, the Frente de Todos and Juntos por el Cambio, incur affective polarization.
In the words of the political scientist Catalina Smulovitz, it is an emotional confrontation, where the parties question the moral character of their opponent.
For her part, the researcher Ana María Mustapic speaks of pernicious polarization.
The expression refers to the division of the political world into two mutually exclusive camps.
In both definitions, the absence of legitimacy granted by rivals and the denial of the other as an interlocutor is verified.
This is directly linked to institutional quality.
By renouncing dialogue, both sectors belittle republican culture.
Instead, they have opted for the systemic closure of public debate.
Proof of this is the scarce compromise vocation that is evident in the parliamentary sphere.
Meanwhile, there are those who consider, perhaps rightly, that all past times were better.
In a recent essay entitled “Meditations on Vespers.
For a great transversal coalition”, the sociologist Juan Carlos Torre mentions three moments of political cooperation between adversaries: in 1987, the agreement between Raúl Alfonsín and Antonio Cafiero to approve the federal co-participation law;
the Pact of Olivos that made possible the constitutional reform of 1994;
the provisional government of 2001, headed by Eduardo Duhalde and supported by Alfonsín.
Going against those experiences, and at the dawn of a year marked by a new presidential election, the political system seems to be on the path of self-destruction.
In a situation where the intellectual laziness of a good part of the leadership is rampant, nuclei of society doubt democracy and its fundamental values.
Within this framework, skeptics and fans are increasing.
For them there are no greys: political dialogue is a surrender, agreeing with adversaries implies betraying one's own ideas and moderation implies weakness or lack of courage.
Against this backdrop, then, those who encourage radicalization - in any of its forms - promote the advance and consolidation of authoritarianism.
Damián Toschi has a degree in Social Communication (UNLP)