When political leaders' personalities threaten democracy
By combining electoral data with psychological assessments, political scientists have shown that the polarisation of our societies largely stems from the problematic personalities of some elected representatives.
The personalities of politicians seem to directly impact the polarisation of society. With support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), a team from the University of Lausanne, led by Diego Garzia, aims to understand how the behavioural traits of elected officials deepen identity rifts in the population. Garzia's study, published in the European Journal of Political Research, analysed the behaviour of several politicians and found that a specific leadership temperament – characterised by psychologists as a blend of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy – plays a key role in intensifying polarisation.
"Polarisation is a threat to democracy," says Frederico Ferreira da Silva, co-author of the article. "It stops political parties from cooperating and poisons relations between individuals."
Differences of identity rather than substance
The concept of affective polarisation emerged in political science debates in the 1980s but only gained prominence in the literature during the 2010s. Since then, it has been increasingly used to explain the deteriorating political climate, characterised by deep-rooted animosity between political camps. "Opposing voter factions perceive differences that are not always reflected in their parties' positions," explains Frederico Ferreira da Silva. "This perception is primarily identity-based and is particularly evident in the United States, where Republicans and Democrats may not differ significantly in their policy agendas yet still view each other with deep-seated hostility."
Among Western democracies, the United States has experienced the sharpest rise in polarisation in recent years. The Lausanne study compiles the results of a number of polls carried out across the country, which reveal growing hostility between voters of the two parties. Research by Frederico Ferreira da Silva indicates that the behavioural traits of the elected representatives, among other factors, have created this rift.
Masses of electoral data and psychological assessments
Frederico Ferreira da Silva also analysed post-election opinion polls from 60 countries – not including Switzerland – compiled in the CSES database, which has been maintained since 1994 by the University of Michigan and the Leibniz Institute of Social Sciences. These sources were cross-referenced with the NEGex database, which has gathered data from the polls and media coverage of over 140 electoral campaigns worldwide. This comparison enables us to look at factors such as the aggressiveness of the campaign, the nature of the attacks between candidates, the stoking of emotions such as fear and the use of arguments such as anti-elitism.
The NEGex database also contains an assessment of each election candidate by various panels of renowned experts using the criteria of the so-called "dark triad" theory. Coined in 2002 by psychologists Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams, this theory is based on the frequent concurrence of three character traits: narcissism, characterised by excessive self-esteem and a lack of empathy; Machiavellianism, defined by an amoral preoccupation with exploiting others; and psychopathy, determined by an impulsiveness that shows little regard for others. These traits can be found among the general population. However, if we look at how these traits are expressed among politicians, we find that "overall, elected members of the populist right show higher scores for narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism," explains Frederico Ferreira da Silva. "However, the phenomenon does not spare the other parties."
By cross-referencing these data, the researcher was able to measure a greater degree of polarisation among voters who support a politician rated highly on the Dark Triad scale. Affective polarisation can be fuelled by either aversion to the opposite camp or by the rhetoric of one's own camp. However, the data do not indicate a significantly stronger polarisation based on voters' negative perceptions of the opposing party. Instead, as the researcher from Lausanne emphasised, it is the rhetoric within their own party that proves decisive.
These factors also suggest that affective polarisation is more a question of supply than demand. In other words, it is a form of transfer from the politician to his supporters rather than an impetus from them. "Of course, this dynamic involves both supply and demand," the researcher explains. "But if I had to compare their influence, I’d say it’s primarily a top-down phenomenon."
Frederico Ferreira da Silva is concerned about the polarising and very direct influence that leaders with characteristics of the dark triad exert on the population. "There is as yet no scientific consensus on the issue, but many indicators tend to show that the most polarised people are also the most supportive of the erosion of democratic norms."