Social Media, Populism, and Identity in Shaping Political Polarization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/politeia.v3i2.966Keywords:
Political Polarization, Affective Polarization, Democratic Resilience, Populism, Social Media, Institutional Trust, Comparative PoliticsAbstract
Political polarization represents a critical challenge for modern democracies, influencing political discourse, weakening institutional stability, and eroding civic trust. This review synthesizes key drivers, consequences, and global variations to provide an integrated understanding of its impact on democratic governance. Literature was systematically retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using keywords such as political polarization, affective polarization, partisan hostility, and democratic resilience. Studies were included if they addressed causes, consequences, or mitigation strategies within democratic contexts. The review synthesizes findings across quantitative, qualitative, and experimental research traditions. Findings show that polarization is fueled by the interaction of social media, populist rhetoric, and cultural identity conflicts, which collectively intensify both affective and ideological divisions. Consequences include reduced institutional effectiveness, weakened democratic norms, declining public trust, and heightened extremism. Comparative analysis reveals that advanced democracies tend to face ideologically rooted polarization, while developing democracies are more affected by identity-based and socio-economic divisions. Despite contextual differences, polarization consistently weakens democratic resilience and erodes social cohesion. The discussion connects these findings to theories of democracy, highlights systemic factors such as inequality and weak representation, and considers policy responses including institutional reform, civic education, and media regulation. Future research is recommended to adopt interdisciplinary, comparative, and longitudinal approaches. This review contributes a unique synthesis of interdisciplinary and cross-regional insights, underscoring the urgency of addressing polarization to safeguard democratic systems in an increasingly fragmented environment.
References
Akboğa, S., Şahin, O., & Arık, E. (2023). Polarisation over the meaning of democracy: the case of political parties in Turkey. Politics, 45(3), 333-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231191445 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231191445
Benson, J. (2023). Democracy and the epistemic problems of political polarization. American Political Science Review, 118(4), 1719-1732. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423001089 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001089
Droppert, H., & Bennett, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility in global health: an exploratory study of multinational pharmaceutical firms. Globalization and Health, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0100-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0100-5
Fure‐Slocum, E. (2024). Teaching the January 6th insurrection: historical perspectives on a crisis in American democracy. American British and Canadian Studies, 42(1), 182-207. https://doi.org/10.2478/abcsj-2024-0010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/abcsj-2024-0010
González, Y. (2020). ‘Democracy under threat’: the foundation of the opposition in Venezuela. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 40(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.13090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.13090
Jaime, G., Hobeika, A., & Figuié, M. (2022). Access to veterinary drugs in Sub-Saharan Africa: roadblocks and current solutions. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.558973 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.558973
Jacob, W. (2018). Integrated rural development from a historical and global perspective. Asian Education and Development Studies, 7(4), 438-452. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeds-02-2018-0022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-02-2018-0022
Kimuli, I. (2025). Research perspectives for improving regulation and policy development for energy efficiency and sustainable mobility in Uganda. iScience, 112877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112877
Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Baden, C., & Yarchi, M. (2020). Interpretative polarization across platforms: how political disagreement develops over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120944393 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120944393
LaMonica, H., Loblay, V., Poulsen, A., Hindmarsh, G., Alam, M., Ekambareshwar, M., … & Hickie, I. (2024). Top 10 research lessons learned from a digital childrearing program in low- and middle-income countries: a multi-case study (preprint). Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/65705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.65705
Lee, I., & Hwang, S. (2018). Urban entertainment center (UEC) as a redevelopment strategy for large-scale post-industrial sites in Seoul: between public policy and privatization of planning. Sustainability, 10(10), 3535. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103535
Lovell, H., & Powells, G. (2020). Smart grid knowledges and the state. Area, 52(3), 583-590. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12613
Marshall, M., & Cole, B. (2023). Societal-system analytics and the problem of factionalism in emerging (and declining) democracies. Social Evolution & History, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2023.01.02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2023.01.02
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576
Morrissey, L., & Boswell, J. (2020). Finding common ground. European Journal of Political Theory, 22(1), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120969920 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120969920
Muhtadi, B., & Warburton, E. (2020). Inequality and democratic support in Indonesia. Pacific Affairs, 93(1), 31-58. https://doi.org/10.5509/202093131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5509/202093131
Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Vahlstrup, P., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. (2021). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000290 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000290
Scholtz, H. (2024). Polarization and partitioning representation: how an overlooked aspect of contemporary democracy leads to polarizing societies. Sociology Compass, 18(10). https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.70008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.70008
Setiawan, K., & Tomsa, D. (2023). Defending a vulnerable yet resilient democracy: civil society activism in Jokowi's Indonesia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 42(3), 350-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034231209058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034231209058
Suk, J., Coppini, D., Múñiz, C., & Rojas, H. (2021). The more you know, the less you like: a comparative study of how news and political conversation shape political knowledge and affective polarization. Communication and the Public, 7(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473211063237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473211063237
Torcal, M., & Carty, E. (2022). Partisan sentiments and political trust: a longitudinal study of Spain. South European Society & Politics, 27(1), 171-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2022.2047555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2022.2047555
