Series Summary
Introduction
On March 23rd, 2023, the Public Policy Forum (PPF), in partnership with the Centre for Media, Technology, and Democracy, hosted an event on Canadian polarization at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, Ontario. The event featured the presentation of essays written by leading Canadian voices on polarization for the PPF’s Polarization Essay Series, along with talks by invited guests and discussions between the presenters and the audience. This report outlines important takeaways from the event.
What is polarization and why should we care about it?
Differing from institutional distrust and democratic dissatisfaction, polarization can be broadly classified into the following two forms: 1) ideological polarization, whereby policy preferences across groups of people become more distant over time, and 2) affective polarization, whereby partisan groups become more hostile toward one another.
As pointed out in Eric Merkley’s essay, polarization is consequential insofar as it tends to erode the social fabric of societies by segregating groups from one another through decreased levels of trust and higher levels of prejudice toward opposing political groups. These patterns challenge the pillars of a well-functioning democracy. While that part of the story is fairly well known, both Merkley’s essay and Justin Ling’s talk at the event underscore that polarization also has an appreciable productive potential, that may lead to more creative policy-making. Ideological polarization at the party level is not inherently bad, as it offers voters clearly different perspectives, making it easier for them to distinguish amongst parties and their platforms. One of the main criticisms of Canadian party politics over the last decades has been the great ideological proximity between the two governing parties during the 20th Century, a notion encompassed in the scholarly concept of “brokerage politics,” where parties offer essentially similar policy platforms to voters. Having parties that are more ideologically distant can offer voters a clearer choice and make them feel like they have a greater capacity to influence policy-making. Granted that the parties do not become too radical in their positions, a clear difference in policy-making visions across parties can be seen as desirable from a democratic standpoint. On the other hand, affective polarization – hostility across partisan groups – does not have such desirable consequences. It fosters a closed-minded attitude to political debates which prevents parties and social groups from finding ways to bridge their differences and make productive use of their ideological distinctions. Affective polarization is thus concerning as it can change people’s approach to politics.
Deciphering levels of polarization in Canada is difficult. As Wendy Chun mentions in her interview, comparison with the United States can be misleading, and thus not an adequate metric to use, as Canada, although seemingly less polarized than our American neighbours, is still polarized to a non-negligeable extent, especially on specific issues like climate change. Ling points out how last year’s Freedom Convoy exemplifies how Canada is not immune to the detrimental effects of polarization and how it can have a perceptible impact on our lives. [HAHM3] Accordingly, even a reasonably small amount of polarization can, under the right circumstances, blossom into large-scale movements that can shake the everyday workings of our society. But where is this polarization coming from? Although the jury is still out on this question, Merkley and Ling both argue that the evidence we have points to political parties being the main drivers of polarization in the country through their progressive movement away from the ideological center and especially the adoption of a more aggressive and conflicting rhetoric.
What role do information sources play in the process of polarization?
People’s political attitudes are largely mediated by news outlets that operate as the main providers of political information. Extensive research on voting behaviour shows that citizens have a limited amount of time and interest to invest on politically informing themselves. Yet, political information is vital to allow citizens to fulfill their democratic duties, as one cannot make a sound electoral choice without having a minimal amount of political information to evaluate. Given that citizens cannot reasonably be expected to read every line of parties’ electoral platforms, let alone watch every debate or committee in the House of Commons, the media plays a critical role in summarizing and synthesizing political issues and debates to citizens. Yet, as both Ling’s talk and Tworek and Solomun’ essay point out, trust in media and its capacity to moderate political debates has declined in Canada over the last decades. Wendy Chun and Erica Ifill argue that this growing distrust has opened the door for new information sources, such as alternative and often ideologically radical media sources to provide other options for some citizens that have grown discontented with traditional media and politics. As new media sources with clear ideological goals are appearing, some of them rely on misinformation to push forward their ideological agenda, prioritizing their political goals at the expense of their responsibility to provide factual information to citizens. Although these alternative information sources are not as widespread in Canada as they are in the United States and their market presence remains marginal, their audience is nevertheless strong and growing, as Ling points out.
Social media is often identified as a major source of polarization in Western democracies. The digital nature of interactions that occur on it paves the way for acrimonious debates all the while allowing its users to segregate themselves from counter-attitudinal information. Many thus believe that social media enhances polarization, yet Elizabeth Dubois and Guillermo Renna’s essay, along with Merkley’s, describes how the latest scientific evidence is more nuanced and suggests that these concerns may have been overblown. It appears that people may not be as isolated from counter-attitudinal information on social media as we initially thought, reflecting what Wendy Chun identifies as people’s natural inclination to interact with people from diverse backgrounds and attitudes. The bottom line is that relatively few people on social media are polarized and it does not seem that social media use is radicalizing people in any significant way.
Aengus Bridgman’s essay takes us in a different direction, underscoring how this small number of polarized social media users can still be very politically influential. In fact, they tend to be among the most active social media users and can benefit from social media affordances that allow them to build networks, better organize themselves, and gain political leverage. This is exactly what happened with the Freedom Convoy. The potentially emancipatory power of social media to facilitate political mobilization identified by Dubois and Renna thus runs both ways, helping any group that feels marginalized, whether politically benevolent or not, to gain greater power.
What role does the Far Right play in Canadian polarization?
When we think of polarization in Canada, the growing Far Right movement tends to come to mind. As Eric Ifill and Stephanie Carvin argue in their essays, the pandemic played a role in its growth, leading people to feel isolated, scared, and powerless. These emotions then developed into a growing sense of anger that the Far Right has been very successful at capturing and channelling into political action. Edward Greenspon, president of the Public Policy Forum, underscored in the event the worrying fact that these negative feelings run particularly high among youth, who tend to be less engaged in traditional political acts, like voting and activism through partisan channels.
The Far Right capitalizes on these feelings by fueling a sense of alienation and calling for radical changes to the social and political milieu. That Canadian youth are particularly attracted to this kind of discourse is a profound cause for concern, as their political leverage is set to increase for the coming decades through the natural process of generational replacement. With older, more trusting generations progressively being replaced by younger citizens that exhibit lower levels of trust and higher levels of anger toward politics, one may naturally wonder how this may impact the political development of our country.
But, what exactly are the political aspirations of the Canadian Far Right? First and foremost, Riley Yesno’s essay describes how it is a profoundly anti-state movement, which is highly critical of traditional political institutions (including the media). It is particularly critical toward political parties’ lack of diverse perspectives and political institutions’ barriers to entry which keep them on the sidelines of political action. This fuels a sense of marginalization which leads it to seek non-traditional forms of political action, such as the Trucker Convoy. Given the relatively small number of Canadians who support the Far Right, Bridgman suggests that their acts are mostly organized on social media, which allows the small group of radical Canadians to get into contact with one another and develop a sense of community. This substantiates Bridgman’s claim that even though polarized social media users are relatively few, they can be quite influential. Carvin identifies another way in which the media environment contributes to the rise of the Canadian Far Right, as it benefits from the current growth of alt-right media sources, which feeds its supporters with more palatable – although often factually wrong – political information. The Far Right also operates by spreading distrust among the population, as more distrust means that their misinformation-prone media sources appear more credible as traditional media and political institutions are criticized. Tworek and Solomun provide a lengthy discussion of how climate obstruction is a critical strategy of the Canadian Far Right to manipulate public opinion over climate change.
Conclusion
Canada may not be as polarized as the United States, but this does not mean that we should disregard the issue altogether. All of the essays presented in this report provide complementary reasons why we should take the issue seriously. Polarization has been growing across the country as trust in traditional political institutions – such as parties and mainstream media sources – has been simultaneously declining. The acrimonious tone that parties have adopted toward one another appears to be an important cause of the phenomenon, which backfired as citizens are now becoming increasingly distrusting of and hostile toward opposing party representatives. An important cause for concern is the concentration of distrust and anger among younger generations of Canadians. Given that these are the generations that will shape our democracy for years to come, it is worth addressing the issue now before it is too late. Finding ways for people to engage in open-minded political debates and embrace differences of opinions has the potential to change people’s approach to politics and make a productive use of valuable political differences.
FAQ
What is political polarization?
Political polarization can take two forms: 1) ideological polarization, whereby policy preferences across groups of people become more distant over time, typically clustering in two groups with contrasting attitudes, and 2) affective polarization, whereby partisan groups become more hostile towards one another.
How politically polarized is Canada?
In comparison to other OECD countries, and particularly to the United States, polarization in Canada is moderate. Research shows, however, that levels of polarization have been increasing over the last 10 years.
What are the main sources of political polarization in Canada?
A growing hostility between political parties appears to have polarized the Canadian electorate, mimicking political elites’ growing animosity toward opposing parties and their representatives.
How does traditional media contribute to polarization in Canada?
The digital environment creates incentives for media to focus on click-bait: shocking news that can lead people to perceive greater polarization than there actually is in their political system.
How does social media contribute to polarization in Canada?
Concerns over social media’s contribution to polarization are likely overblown. Only a small minority of social media users either publish or consume polarizing content. Yet, those that do can be politically influential. Accordingly, social media does not appear to polarize people, but it supports the building of networks of polarized people.
Are misinformation and disinformation the same thing?
Mis- and dis-information similar, but not identical. Disinformation refers to false information that is knowingly spread with the intent to manipulate people’s opinions. Misinformation is information that is factually wrong, but that may not necessarily be written and distributed to manipulate opinions.
Does misinformation have anything to do with polarization?
Politically polarized actors (e.g., media sources, pundits, activists) often rely on misinformation to further their political goals. Misinformation thus contributes to polarization.
What are the political consequences of misinformation?
The latest evidence suggests that misinformation does not have a profound impact on the results of democratic processes, including elections. Yet, misinformation does decrease trust in political institutions and can contribute to people abstaining from taking part in democratic processes. This may lead them to consider alternative, potentially less democratic, ways of influencing politics.
Why is misinformation becoming more prevalent in Canada?
The recent decline in trust for traditional news media has resulted in a surge in popularity for new partisan media outlets. These partisan media outlets tend to provide less reliable information to their audiences, placing partisan goals over their responsibility as fair information providers.