Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democracy and division: Can democratic innovations reduce polarization?

people arguing
Pict Rider/Getty Images

Leighninger is the director of public engagement at Public Agenda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to creating a stronger, more inclusive, more participatory democracy for everyone. This is part of an occasional series.

More than ever, Americans are concerned about political polarization. Public Agenda's most recent Hidden Common Ground survey found that 93 percent of Americans say it is important to reduce divisiveness in the United States. Over one-third say that partisan divisiveness has affected their personal lives. And while the United States has become the poster child for hyperpartisanship, people in many other countries have similar concerns about their own political systems.

At the same time, citizens have hope that polarization can be overcome. People seem to have a firm conviction in the basic capacity of human beings to communicate, understand each other, respect their differences and compromise.

People are more likely to place the blame for polarization on their leaders and systems of government. Most Americans (77 percent) think the inability to constructively disagree in the United States is driven from the top down. "Many politicians are artificially dividing society," agreed former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton in one of our recent webinars on Global Learning on Democratic Innovation, organized with Club de Madrid and Participedia. Part of the problem, Bruton pointed out, is the use of political strategies based on exploiting wedge issues. Another part, he added, is that "very few people support institutions in which they have no say."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Our human capacity for compromise is impeded by the challenge of scale – the fact that bridge-building must occur across a nation that has been sorted into homogeneous clusters, geographically and online. It is also limited by the structure of our political systems today, which promotes conflict, even at levels closest to home, rather than providing ways to address it. And it is complicated, in America and other countries as well, by the persistence of racism.

To address the divisions in our societies, three kinds of democratic innovations have emerged: 1) local efforts to bring people together, 2) national or even multinational initiatives that use technology to try to build bridges at scale, and 3) changes in governance processes that try to make bridge-building and collaboration among citizens a regular part of public decision-making. The first two types take the form of activities or initiatives, while the third is more structural. The success of these three kinds of innovations probably relies on the extent to which they are able to build on and support one another.

Terms like "democratic innovation" may seem strange because, especially in the United States, we tend to treat our democracy as something that we've inherited and that doesn't change — rather than a system that can be improved. But of course it does change, and around the world people have been changing democracy, and we can learn a great deal from how those modifications have worked. One excellent source for finding examples of democratic innovations is Participedia, the largest online collection of examples, methods and organizations related to public participation.

Proven Local Practices

The first way of dealing with division, through local efforts at bridge-building and collaboration, has the longest history and the greatest track record of success. Most of these efforts rely on paired or small-group discussions that happen face-to-face, often with skilled facilitators or mediators. When people meet in these kinds of settings, where they have the chance to share experiences and interact on a more human level, they are more likely to empathize with one another, find common ground and understand the reasons for their disagreements.

Some of these practices are supported by ongoing dialogue programs like Corrymeela in Northern Ireland, which engages 8,0000 people a year. The skills for local bridge-building are often disseminated through training and fellowship programs, in places as diverse as East Africa and Israel. They have also been used as part of youth camps, regular bridge-building social events, or as part of efforts to spread awareness of historical incidents. Local bridge-building efforts are also connected and supported by national or international organizations like the Sustained Dialogue Institute, Braver Angels, Listen First Coalition, and others.

Many of these processes name racism as a central factor, spoken or unspoken, in polarization and division. Others simply aim to provide a 'safe space' for participants to address all kinds of racial, religious, political or other differences.

Scaling through technology

A new wave of initiatives are using these practices as part of online platforms that can allow bridge-building on a national or international scale. Organizations like Soliya were among the first to pioneer this sort of "virtual exchange."

Our research shows that the majority of Americans (66 percent) are looking for better ways to understand people with different political views than them, and 2021 promises to be an active year for these kinds of initiatives. A national engagement effort called America Talks, supported by USA Today, the Civic Health Project, the ListenFirst Coalition, Public Agenda and The Fulcrum, aims to involve thousands of people in one-on-one virtual discussions on June 12 and 13. To facilitate discussion across divides, participants answer a few short survey questions and are then paired so they have a chance to talk with someone who is politically different from them. America Talks is based on similar initiatives in Europe, such as My Country Talks.

Some online technologies use artificial intelligence to help people find common ground on policy questions. For example, Polis is a platform that allows participants to vote on different statements, uses AI to identify opinion groups and helps people craft compromise statements that bring together the opinion groups through further voting. The platform has been used as part of the vTaiwan process, a nationwide effort in Taiwan that also convenes face-to-face workshops for developing statements and action steps.

New machinery for collaboration in democracy

Whether the bridge-building focus is local, national or global, these efforts may reach their greatest potential if they can connect with another type of democratic innovation: reforms that provide more opportunities for community members to collaborate and contribute to public decision-making and problem-solving. Our Hidden Common Ground research shows the appetite for this: 84 percent of Americans say that "giving ordinary people a greater voice in the decisions that affect their lives" would help reduce polarization, and 83 percent say the same about "improving economic opportunity and security for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, or where they live."

Some communities and countries have been able to embed bridge-building in their official governance processes. One case is the Kahnawake Community Decision-Making Process used by communities of the Mohawk Nation in Quebec, Canada. Another is the system of National Policy Conferences in Brazil, which connects local discussions about a policy issue with state and then federal conferences, in a sort of pyramid structure. Participants at the local level elect delegates to carry their ideas and concerns to the higher levels of governance. Ireland has used Citizen's Assemblies chartered by the national legislature to address polarized issues. In many countries, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have been used by governments to help build bridges and address past injustices.

To connect bridge-building with policymaking, both local and scalable practices seem critical. Public officials are unlikely to compromise with one another on a contentious issue if their constituents show no willingness to compromise. Local bridge-building efforts can establish common ground among community members, but scalable practices — and a system for aggregating the policy preferences of the people who participate — seem important for breaking legislative gridlock among state and federal officials.

The America Talks process will attempt to link local and national efforts by letting participants know about opportunities to get involved in bridge-building, deliberation and problem-solving efforts in their communities. Hundreds of those local initiatives will be happening in 2021, organized by networks like the National Issues Forums and many other organizations, as part of a National Week of Conversation.

Americans say they want to overcome political polarization, and at least in 2021, both community members and officials will have local and national opportunities to do so. To help these efforts succeed, both by attracting large numbers of people and by breaking legislative gridlocks on contentious issues, we should study how local, scalable and structural solutions can support one another, and we should take stock of what can be learned from democratic innovations in other countries.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less