Why Polarization Persists—And How We Can End It

The polarization of democratic societies is often discussed in moral, cultural, or psychological terms—blaming angry voters, radical elites, or the rise of toxic media. But what if the deeper cause lies elsewhere, hidden in plain sight?

In my recent open-access article in Sociology Compass, I argue that polarization is not inevitable. It results from a mismatch between our institutions and our societies. The paper, titled “Polarization and Partitioning Representation: How an Overlooked Aspect of Contemporary Democracy Leads to Polarizing Societies”, offers a bold new theory of why democracies are breaking down—and how to rebuild them.

While much of the public debate focuses on the United States, the paper presents comparative data across OECD countries to show that polarization is a general trend in Western democracies. The United States may be the extreme case—but it is not an exception.

The Core Argument: A Mismatch Between People and Institutions

The paper introduces the concept of “partitioning representation”—the traditional way democracies represent people by assigning them to discrete, non-overlapping groups: parties, districts, or nation-states. This model worked in the industrial era, when society was neatly divided along class or territorial lines.

But today’s societies are individualized, diverse, and fluid. Citizens no longer live in homogenous blocs that match the political containers built to represent them. As a result, this mismatch creates:

• Disconnected voters, who no longer feel represented and become alienated or angry.
• Radicalized party members, because only the most ideologically committed stay active as broad-based alignment breaks down.
• Incentivized polarization, as politicians and media actors find success in fueling division, not solving shared problems.

What appears as an emotional or cultural breakdown is, Scholtz argues, a structural failure of democratic design.

The Way Forward: Rethinking Representation

The paper’s conclusion is not pessimistic—it’s radically constructive. Scholtz proposes moving beyond partitioning representation toward a new institutional model that allows:

• Dividable votes, enabling citizens to support different actors for different issues.
• Actor openness, letting issue-specific organizations gain democratic mandates.
• Meta-decision freedom, allowing citizens to choose when to participate directly and when to delegate.

This new system—dubbed Civil Democracy—would give people back a sense of political efficacy, restore collective problem-solving, and reduce the incentives that currently fuel polarization.

Why This Paper Matters

By shifting the lens from culture and media to the architecture of representation itself, this paper offers a powerful and overdue reframing of the polarization debate. For scholars, reformers, and citizens alike, the message is clear: If we want to heal democracy, we must rethink its institutions.

🔗 Read the full paper here:
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.70008