ESSAY: IS POLARISATION REALLY SO BAD?

In an address to the United States Congress on July 24, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of “funding and promoting anti-Israel protests in America”, labelling protesters as “Iran’s useful idiots.”
Conversely, when anti-government protests erupted in Iran, following the tragic death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini at the hands of the morality police in September 2022, Iranian officials threatened legal action against the United States, alleging its “direct involvement” in the unrest.
In Pakistan, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif, the director general of the military’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), recently criticised online activism against the army, describing it as “digital terrorism.” He claimed that “digital terrorists” were using tools such as “cell phones, computers, falsehood and propaganda to impose their will on society, just like regular terrorists do.”
The use of such rhetoric to suppress dissent is not surprising. Politicians and their loyal commentators across different political systems are employing a centuries-old playbook: discrediting dissent and opposition by portraying it as a threat to unity or stability. What is surprising is the recent surge in scholarly and political defence of this old strategy — whether intentionally or unintentionally.
A SERIOUS THREAT
Recent scholarship has increasingly emphasised the dangers of polarisation to democratic stability. Jennifer McCoy, a professor of political science at Georgia State University in the USA, articulates this concern, stating: “Severe polarisation makes democracy vulnerable. In healthy democracies, opposing sides are seen as political adversaries to compete against and, at times, to negotiate with. In deeply polarised democracies, the other side comes to be seen as [an] enemy needing to be vanquished.”
McCoy represents scholars and intellectuals who believe that polarisation is the biggest challenge to democracy at this point. This perspective is echoed in the influential work of Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, where they identify polarisation as one of the main reasons why democracies die.
In the Pakistani context, Eos columnist Nadeem F. Paracha warns of the dangers of “pernicious polarisation”, while economist and Dawn columnist Umair Javed notes the shrinking space for dialogue between political blocs. Political analyst Maleeha Lodhi criticises the “continuation of partisan attacks” during crisis times, arguing that such polarisation undermines effective governance and national unity.
These scholars collectively view polarisation as a serious threat that can erode the fundamental norms and institutions necessary for democratic survival.
THE FIGHT FOR RIGHTS
In response, I make two points.
First, all intelligent, progressive politics is always polarising. For example, the history of the United States reveals that significant advancements in racial equality and workers’ rights were often achieved through partisan conflict and political violence rather than genteel compromise. This is hard to accept, since the idea of mythologised Western history dominates the popular imagination.
However, the fact of the matter is that, from the American Civil War’s bloody struggle to end slavery to the violent labour disputes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that led to improved working conditions, to the tumultuous Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s that saw federal troops forcibly integrating schools and protecting Black voters, progress has frequently been born of conflict.
The point is that social progress often — not always — stems from partisan struggle and conflict, not peaceful cooperation. Marginalised groups have frequently faced violent opposition, using grassroots movements and civil disobedience to fight for their rights against entrenched interests in American history.
Second, conflicts in Western societies often stem from clashing visions of national identity. One side upholds traditional hierarchies and supremacy, while the other seeks equality and inclusivity. Treating both as equally legitimate democratic forces is inherently anti-democratic.
Political scientists Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason write in their 2022 book Radical American Partisanship that: “…peace that comes by sacrificing fair elections and the rights of oppressed people is morally indefensible, as with similar calls for compromise before, during, and after the Civil War and Reconstruction. In those far-gone cases, force — not compromise — was necessary to maintain and advance democracy.”
Let’s not forget history’s lesson that it honours those who fought for human dignity, not those who preserved unjust order and exploitation.
RISE OF POLARISATION IN PAKISTAN
Pakistan’s 2024 election defied the logic of conventional politics. According to Gallup, 64 percent voted outside biradari [clan, kinship] and only 16 percent voted for patronage. Youth turnout rose from 26 percent (2018) to 48 percent (2024). Caste influence waned, as tech-savvy youth and the middle class emerged.
Some scholars argue that the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s social media mobilisation spoke truth to power. Young voters expressed defiance against state oppression through their ballots.
According to Adeel Malik and Maya Tudor, who wrote an excellent paper on the post-election state of democracy in Pakistan, the military’s long-standing image as Pakistan’s “national guardian” and “stalwart defender of an Islamic nation in a perilous region” is eroding.
Historically, the military cultivated this image through its involvement in foreign wars and internal conflicts, some of which it “instigated” itself. It also maintained this perception by “actively discrediting politicians” and pursuing corruption charges against prominent political figures.
However, Malik and Tudor contend that the educated middle class and the youth are now rejecting this narrative. The public “no longer views the military as a guardian” but, instead, sees it as “an entrenched political and economic player.” This shift is attributed to the growing awareness of incidences of military corruption, history of failed governance, and the military’s overt interference in politics, leading to a “historic loss of public trust and legitimacy.”
In Pakistan, youth dissent is now labelled as polarisation and a security threat. Some journalists and analysts call for compromise among elites for national stability. However, such a populist view ignores the fact that the issue is not about understanding, but about interests and power.
Malik and Tudor rightly point out that the military faces a dilemma: its economic interests as the country’s largest business conglomerate conflict with needed reforms, while inaction risks further eroding public legitimacy. Having lost control of the narrative, the military may resort to force to maintain supremacy and silence ‘digital terrorists.’
THE PRICE OF STABILITY
Frederick Douglass, an American abolitionist, famously said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” Sometimes, partisan movements that challenge the system are necessary to expand democracy and achieve greater justice.
While individual acts of violence should always be condemned, politically motivated unrest can sometimes serve a democratising purpose, if it leads to expanded rights and representation, as seen in some of the examples from American history.
In today’s Pakistan, the call for compromise and stability raises critical questions about the true nature and consequences of such reconciliation. When we advocate for compromise, we must consider the price it entails. Who bears the cost of this compromise, and what are they expected to sacrifice?
Similarly, the pursuit of stability comes with its own set of trade-offs. We must ask ourselves: what is stability, for whom, and under what terms?
It is crucial to scrutinise the conditions under which compromise is reached and stability is maintained, as these factors can significantly impact the long-term social, economic and political landscape of the country.
Movements for provincial autonomy, minority rights or electoral reforms may create instability in the short term. However, suppressing these movements in the name of stability only pushes underlying tensions underground. A truly stable Pakistan will only emerge through expanding democratic participation, protecting minority rights, and creating a more just society — not through top-down control.
None of this justifies all partisan conflict or political violence. However, we must scrutinise calls for ‘stability’ that maintain an unjust status quo. Pakistan needs robust democratic institutions to manage disagreements, not top-down artificial stability. True democracy must include everyone; an inherently anti-democratic process can’t resolve conflicts.
Only through inclusive democratic processes, despite their messiness, can Pakistan achieve lasting stability founded on justice and equality for all citizens.
The writer is a Graduate Affiliate at the Center for Innovation in Social Science at Boston University, USA. He can be reached at [email protected]
Published in Dawn, EOS, September 1st, 2024