Polarisation: a visceral symptom of anti-politics

Polarisation is rooted in populism, in the politician's response by proposing easy solutions to complex scenarios. It is congenital to the context in crisis, accentuated by the technological era in which we live and guided by the over-information to which we are exposed.

Both populism and polarisation emerge from the social triangle of weariness; the loss of trust in institutions, in the public sphere, in politics. And both suffer from the dishonesty, the serious and growing problem of our society. Differentiating lies from truth has become a fallacy, the so-called post-truth.

We have become accustomed, or rather badly accustomed, to voting.

Whistle-blowing is easier than buck passing, now, by means of a motion of censure. It has become an instrument for those who do not follow the rules of the game, as in a school playground. Because governing, reaching consensus and making policy has become implausible in a scenario that looks more like a theatrical comedy than a political one, in which everything is applauded, and in the midst of the worst health crisis (so far) of this century.

Obviously, the blame does not lie entirely with the ruling political class, because for polarisation to take effect it requires several actors: politicians, the media and citizens. Polarisation provides the media with a lively discourse rich in consumerism, citizens with an identity corner, be it to the left or to the right, and politicians with a raison d'être. A vehicle, the search for the enemy and a discourse, polarisation on the move.

Who needs an enemy most, the citizen or the politician?

The Romans had no choice but to hire the barbarians to protect their borders, especially in the north, and in this way the first waves of barbarians entered the Empire peacefully. This might make it easier to understand how polarisation works: to confront fake news, a politician champions a "communication" medium, so that the barbarian enters our information system peacefully.

Affective polarisation is referred to as "the action of voters moving towards or away from their leaders out of a feeling of affinity". I believe that: we have trivialised hatred as much as the search for truth. Politicians know that polarisation is not born, it is made.

The loss of trust in politics is already a reality sustained by the loss itself. The construction of the enemy has transformed our interests, those of the citizen. So much so that this very thing is based on renouncing the truth, searching for the truth.

What about the media's role in society?

The 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer, a major communications consultancy, places Spain at the same level as Colombia or South Africa, in the lowest positions in terms of trust in the media, however, this is not exclusive to Spain but a widespread world view. This Index reveals a disturbing level of public mistrust of journalists, with 59% of respondents in 28 countries saying that journalists deliberately try to mislead the public by reporting information they know to be false. Also 59% said most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than informing the public. It sounds pessimistic and frightening, and it is.

From the point of view of the media (fortunately not all of them) there is the ability to divert attention and, even worse, the tools to displace it. Does the citizen feel overwhelmed in the face of such an overload of information? I don't think so. Polarisation is a knee-jerk reaction to the attitude of the citizen, not that of the politician; the politician's attitude is fleeting and arduous over time.

Spain is not a country for the centrists, at least not at the moment.

In our country (this is not a particular case) we coexist those who never forget, those who are resurrected, the winners, the losers, those who never won, all of us in unison. Spain has many more ideologies than political parties, which is why there is such a high degree of party-switching.

In the 1993 elections, the sixth since the Transition, the Socialist Party and the Popular Party combined 73.54% of the votes, a lot of room for polarisation that continued to grow until the 2008 elections; PSOE and PP came to 83.81% of the vote. This dynamic began to fracture after the 2011 elections, which was accentuated by the emergence of different political parties. The mottos 'Vamos Ciudadanos!' (Let's go, Citizens!) or 'Sí se puede!' (Yes, we can!) pulled the citizens along, convinced and enthusiastic about a change in Spain's reality. Today, both parties show a clear fragmentation within their own groups. Some have moved to other formations, others are splitting.

Meanwhile, emotion is on the highway of polarisation. Voters no longer deliberate based on reason, on data, on tangibles, and are guided by the feeling of belonging. You are either with me or against me, because if you are in the centre, you are with the others.

After polarisation comes reality, extremes alone are incapable of working on structural policies, thus citizens rooted in the appropriateness of their feelings find themselves in an uncertain future.