Between Polarization and Order: Understanding
Institutional Resilience Through the Lens of Political
Polarization
2021315377 정치외교학과 장서오
<Abstract>
This paper examines the phenomenon of political polarization in contemporary liberal
democracies, using the United States as a primary case study. It analyzes the structural,
technological, and psychological causes of polarization, including the rise of identity politics,
economic stratification, social media echo chambers, and emotionalized political identities.
The paper further compares the resilience of liberal democratic systems with the vulnerability
of authoritarian regimes when facing internal divisions. Through historical examples such as
the late Soviet Union and China’s Cultural Revolution, it highlights how democracies, despite
experiencing intense polarization, possess institutional mechanisms for peaceful conflict
resolution and adaptation, while authoritarian states often collapse under suppressed tensions.
The study concludes that polarization is not inherently fatal to democracies; rather, the key
determinant of resilience lies in the strength of institutional frameworks and civic culture.
Preliminary suggestions are made for strengthening democratic resilience, including
enhancing civic education, media reform, and electoral system adjustments.
Keywords: political polarization, liberal democracy, authoritarianism, institutional resilience,
United States, comparative politics
1
CONTENTS
<Abstract> .................................................................................................................................1
I.Introduction ............................................................................................................................3
II. Main Body ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 The Causes of Political Polarization: The American Experience ...................................4
2.1.1.Structural Causes: Identity Politics and Economic Stratification ........................ 4
2.1.2.Technological Causes: Social Media Algorithms and Media Fragmentation ...... 5
2.1.3.Psychological Causes: Identity Anxiety and Emotional Politics ........................... 5
2.1.4.Summary .................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Democracy vs Authoritarianism: Different Responses to Polarization .........................6
2.2.1.Polarization in Liberal Democracies: Extremes Within a Repairable
Framework ................................................................................................................................6
2.2.2.Social Division Under Authoritarian Regimes: Suppression and Explosion ....... 6
2.2.3.Comparative Case Study: The United States vs. the Soviet Union and China’s
Cultural Revolution ..................................................................................................................7
2.2.4.Summary .................................................................................................................... 8
III. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 8
<Reference> ............................................................................................................................ 10
2
I.Introduction
At the end of 2024, with the election of Republican candidate Donald Trump, the agendas
of “America First” and isolationism once again dominated the American political landscape.
After assuming office, Trump not only demanded territorial concessions from countries such
as Canada and Denmark, but also drastically cut support for Ukraine, insisting on a ceasefire
deadline without Ukrainian consent. His talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
ended in open discord, marking a sharp departure from previous diplomatic norms. Moreover,
Trump imposed heavy tariffs on allied nations, undermining the free trade order established
since the founding of the WTO, and sacrificing America’s long-term credibility for short-term
political gains.
However, these policies were not imposed arbitrarily—they were the product of a
democratic election. In stark contrast to his predecessor Joe Biden, who emphasized extensive
support for Ukraine, open immigration policies, and aggressive promotion of diversity and
inclusion, Trump’s platform appealed to a different segment of American society. Biden’s
administration, despite its internationalist orientation, faced criticism for worsening domestic
employment conditions and deteriorating public safety, exacerbated by waves of immigration.
Furthermore, the Democratic Party’s commitment to “political correctness” led to visible
shifts in American cultural life: a proliferation of gender identities, mandatory minority
representation quotas in media, and a widespread perception of cultural absurdity.
In contemporary America, both the Democratic and Republican parties are seen by many
as deeply flawed. The presidential elections have degenerated into choosing “the lesser of two
evils,” a stark contrast to the vibrant political contests of the 1990s when the United States
was often described as the “beacon of democracy.” Today, political polarization in the United
States has reached an unprecedented level, eroding public trust, social cohesion, and
institutional legitimacy.
This reality raises profound questions: Why do even mature liberal democracies like the
United States succumb to such deep political polarization? What distinguishes polarization in
democratic systems from societal disintegration in authoritarian regimes? What risks does
persistent political polarization pose to the stability and resilience of democratic institutions?
To explore these questions, this paper will analyze the phenomenon of polarization as both
3
a symptom and a stress test of institutional design. Drawing upon contemporary American
examples, historical parallels, and theoretical frameworks, it seeks to investigate how
institutional structures shape, mediate, or fail to contain political conflict. Ultimately, this
study aims to deepen the understanding of how democratic systems can sustain
themselves—or falter—under the pressures of internal division.
II. Main Body
2.1 The Causes of Political Polarization: The American Experience
As discussed in the introduction, contemporary American society faces an unprecedented
degree of political polarization. However, to move beyond mere description, it is essential to
analyze the structural, technological, and psychological roots that have given rise to this
phenomenon. Polarization is not a random occurrence but rather the result of deep-seated
transformations within the American political, social, and technological environment.
2.1.1.Structural Causes: Identity Politics and Economic Stratification
One of the primary structural drivers of polarization is the rise of identity politics. Since
the civil rights movements of the 1960s, American politics has increasingly been organized
around race, gender, religion, and other identity categories rather than traditional economic
class lines. Political parties have reoriented themselves: the Democratic Party has become
more associated with multiculturalism and minority rights, while the Republican Party
increasingly appeals to white, rural, and Christian voters. This shift has deepened societal
divisions because issues of identity are inherently more emotional and existential than debates
over tax policy or trade tariffs.
Simultaneously, economic stratification has intensified these divides. The decline of
American manufacturing, wage stagnation for the working and middle classes, and the rising
concentration of wealth among a small elite have fueled a sense of disenfranchisement. For
many Americans, particularly in rural and deindustrialized areas, globalization and
technological advancement have not brought prosperity but instead economic displacement.
This has fostered resentment toward both political establishments, with each side blaming the
other for perceived injustices. Thus, economic and identity anxieties intertwine, reinforcing
4
and amplifying each other.
2.1.2.Technological Causes: Social Media Algorithms and Media Fragmentation
Technological innovation, particularly the rise of social media, has profoundly altered the
landscape of political communication. Unlike traditional mass media, which exposed citizens
to a relatively balanced range of perspectives, platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube
use algorithmic curation to feed users content that aligns with their preexisting preferences.
This phenomenon, known as the echo chamber effect, leads individuals to encounter only
information that reinforces their existing beliefs, while opposing viewpoints are either filtered
out or demonized. As users spend more time within these digital echo chambers, their
political views become more extreme and resistant to change.
Moreover, the fragmentation of traditional media has further exacerbated polarization.
Major news outlets have increasingly aligned themselves with specific ideological
perspectives: CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times with liberal audiences, and Fox News
and talk radio with conservative audiences. Rather than providing a shared set of facts, the
media environment now offers competing realities, each reinforcing the biases of its
respective audience. This has eroded the common informational foundation necessary for
healthy democratic debate.
2.1.3.Psychological Causes: Identity Anxiety and Emotional Politics
Beyond structural and technological factors, psychological dynamics also play a critical
role in fueling polarization. Modern American politics has become less about rational policy
deliberation and more about emotional identity affirmation. When political allegiance
becomes intertwined with personal identity—being a “Democrat” or “Republican” becomes
who one is, not just what one believes—then political disputes are experienced as existential
threats. This phenomenon leads to identity anxiety, where any challenge to one’s political
party or ideology feels like a personal attack.
Furthermore, economic insecurity and cultural change contribute to a pervasive sense of
loss and alienation. In such a context, emotional appeals—anger, fear, resentment—become
more powerful than reasoned argumentation. Political actors, recognizing this dynamic, often
5
exploit it for mobilization, framing elections not as contests over policy but as battles for the
very soul of the nation. Thus, political polarization deepens not only through structural and
technological mechanisms but also through the emotional architecture of human cognition
and group identity.
2.1.4.Summary
In sum, political polarization in the United States today is the product of an intricate
interplay between structural shifts, technological changes, and psychological vulnerabilities.
Identity politics and economic stratification have laid the groundwork; social media and
fragmented traditional media have accelerated and amplified divisions; and emotional identity
dynamics have entrenched them. Understanding these root causes is essential for any
meaningful attempt to mitigate polarization and strengthen the resilience of democratic
institutions.
2.2 Democracy vs Authoritarianism: Different Responses to Polarization
2.2.1.Polarization in Liberal Democracies: Extremes Within a Repairable Framework
In liberal democracies, political polarization, though often severe, occurs within a
framework that allows for peaceful conflict resolution and institutional self-correction.
Mechanisms such as regular electoral turnover, an independent judiciary, and a diversified
media landscape serve as built-in stabilizers. Through free and fair elections, citizens have the
opportunity to replace political leaders without resorting to violence. Judicial independence
ensures that laws apply equally to all, preventing the concentration of power in a single
faction. Meanwhile, a pluralistic media environment exposes the public to competing
narratives and offers platforms for dissent.
Although extreme polarization may undermine civility and cooperation, the existence of
these institutional channels allows liberal democracies to absorb social tensions without
collapsing. Importantly, democratic systems recognize that conflict is an inherent feature of
pluralistic societies and are designed to manage, not eliminate, such conflict.
2.2.2.Social Division Under Authoritarian Regimes: Suppression and Explosion
6
In contrast, authoritarian regimes address societal divisions through suppression rather
than mediation. Free expression is curtailed, dissent is criminalized, and alternative political
voices are systematically eliminated. By monopolizing information channels and using
coercive apparatuses, authoritarian governments attempt to create an artificial appearance of
unity. However, this enforced conformity comes at the cost of building up latent grievances
within society. Because there are no legitimate avenues for expressing dissatisfaction or for
peaceful political change, tensions accumulate unchecked beneath the surface. When crises
arise—whether economic downturns, leadership struggles, or external shocks—the pent-up
frustrations can erupt violently, overwhelming the regime’s capacity for control. Authoritarian
systems, by denying open contestation and adaptability, trade short-term stability for
long-term brittleness.
2.2.3.Comparative Case Study: The United States vs. the Soviet Union and China’s
Cultural Revolution
The contrasting outcomes between liberal democracies and authoritarian states are vividly
illustrated through historical examples. In the United States, despite intense
polarization—such as during the Civil Rights Movement or the Vietnam War protests—the
country experienced peaceful political transitions and maintained institutional continuity.
Contemporary polarization, while concerning, still operates within a framework that tolerates
protest, ensures electoral legitimacy, and protects basic rights.
By contrast, the late-stage Soviet Union exhibited many signs of suppressed social
disintegration. Political dissent was crushed, economic stagnation silenced, and ethnic
tensions ignored until the 1980s, when Gorbachev’s reforms inadvertently unleashed
long-suppressed demands, leading to rapid and chaotic collapse. Similarly, during China’s
Cultural Revolution, the absence of legitimate channels for political debate resulted in violent
bottom-up chaos once Mao Zedong mobilized mass movements. The regime’s rigid structure
could neither accommodate dissent nor channel social energies constructively, resulting in
widespread societal trauma.
Thus, while polarization in liberal democracies is disruptive, it rarely leads to systemic
collapse because institutional mechanisms provide pathways for adaptation. In contrast,
7
authoritarian systems often shatter dramatically because their repression of conflict denies the
possibility of gradual adjustment.
2.2.4.Summary
In summary, political polarization is not exclusive to any particular regime type. However,
the capacity of a system to endure and adapt to polarization differs fundamentally. Liberal
democracies, despite their flaws, possess institutional designs—electoral competition, judicial
independence, and media pluralism—that enable resilience and renewal. Authoritarian
regimes, by contrast, suppress conflict at the cost of flexibility, making them vulnerable to
sudden and catastrophic breakdowns when pressure becomes unsustainable. Understanding
these differences is crucial for appreciating why institutional resilience, rather than the mere
absence of conflict, is the true measure of a system’s strength.
III. Conclusion
The preceding analysis illustrates that political polarization is not a phenomenon unique to
failing or transitional states; rather, it can emerge even within well-established liberal
democracies such as the United States. The American experience highlights that polarization
is a complex outcome of structural, technological, and psychological dynamics: identity
politics, economic inequality, media fragmentation, and emotionalized political identities all
interact to deepen divisions within society.
However, the case study comparisons make clear that polarization manifests differently
depending on the institutional context. In liberal democracies, despite the risks of political
extremism and public distrust, the presence of electoral competition, judicial independence,
and a pluralistic media environment offers mechanisms for peaceful conflict resolution and
institutional self-repair. Democracies are not designed to eliminate conflict but to channel it
constructively. In contrast, authoritarian regimes, by suppressing dissent and stifling open
debate, accumulate unresolved tensions that can ultimately erupt catastrophically, as seen in
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the turmoil of China’s Cultural Revolution.
These findings suggest that the resilience of a political system depends not on the absence
of polarization but on the existence of effective institutional frameworks to mediate conflict,
8
protect minority rights, and enable societal adaptation. In other words, the strength of a
democracy is not measured by the degree of unity it achieves but by how well it survives and
navigates through periods of deep division.
At the same time, this report acknowledges that polarization poses real risks to even the
most robust democratic systems. Unchecked polarization can erode public trust, delegitimize
democratic institutions, and create conditions favorable to demagogues and authoritarian
populists.
Therefore, strengthening institutional resilience requires proactive measures. While this
midterm report has focused primarily on diagnosing the problem, preliminary pathways for
addressing polarization can be suggested. First, enhancing civic education to promote critical
thinking and democratic values is crucial for cultivating an informed electorate. Second,
reforming media structures to encourage exposure to diverse viewpoints can help mitigate
echo chambers and information cocoons. Third, electoral system reforms—such as
nonpartisan redistricting and ranked-choice voting—could incentivize moderation and
cross-party cooperation.
Ultimately, political polarization may be an enduring feature of modern pluralistic
societies. However, the difference between resilient democracies and failing regimes lies in
how conflict is managed, not whether conflict exists. The task ahead, therefore, is not to seek
a utopian consensus but to build and maintain institutions capable of withstanding the
pressures of division without collapsing into chaos.
This insight will serve as the foundation for the final full-length report, which will further
elaborate on mechanisms for democratic resilience, drawing lessons from global experiences
and proposing specific institutional and societal reforms tailored to the contemporary
challenges of polarization.
9
<Reference>
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Schocken Books.
Diamond, L. (2019). Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition,
and American Complacency. Penguin Press.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group.
Kelsen, H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Harvard University Press.
Schmitt, C. (2005). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (G.
Schwab, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1922)
Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton University Press.
Mounk, Y. (2018). The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to
Save It. Harvard University Press.
Zakaria, F. (2003). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. W. W.
Norton & Company.
10
