Against the traps of polarization

It is undeniable that polarization is a part of our sociopolitical reality. Polarization describes the existence of politically opposed positions. In recent times, we have seen how certain ideological and media bubbles, fueled by exclusionary narratives that were once laughable in our communities, have crossed the boundaries of the digital world to invade our neighborhoods, where they find refuge among people and social environments disillusioned by the lack of political solutions to their everyday problems. Indeed, in the arena of political disputes, there have always been proactive arguments, guaranteeing rights, against which reactionary antitheses emerge, directed against equality and coexistence. However, if polarization is inherent to political discussion, what is new about the current situation of polarization?

The first major difference lies in the media where political discussions take place. Social networks have become a meeting point for opposing positions, often fueled by hate speech that algorithms amplify for financial gain. The second difference lies in how the dilemma surrounding the public management of rights is addressed. To find a place for certain political proposals, the limits of what a system that claims to be democratic can assume They have broadened to the point of tolerating intolerant rhetoric. Anti-democratic pronouncements against the guarantee of rights are becoming increasingly commonplace.

What explains the triumph of narratives that fuel polarization? In a context of housing crisis and stagnant wages—which translate into a loss of purchasing power and vulnerability for the working class—what explains the rise of narratives that fuel polarization?–Economic inequality is gaining strength in our country: in 2024, the average salary of executives at Ibex companies was 55 times that of their employees.according to theData from the National Securities Market Council, the salaries of executives have experienced an increase of 172% in the last 20 years, compared to 49% for the average salary.

In this context, are proposals mutually exclusive Those that seek to protect the rentier who lives off real estate speculation or those that defend thefreedomwho can afford it, from the contempt shown for the struggles of non-hegemonic social groups –women, the LGBTIQ+ community, people impoverished or of foreign origin–The main target of these discourses are people in a more vulnerable socioeconomic situation, who are addressed on social media. –and, increasingly, also at street level– They use persuasive narratives that aim to make them complicit in principles based on meritocracy and the law of the (economically) most powerful. And they succeed, presenting magical and disruptive solutions to economic problems and identity conflicts through a simplistic narrative based on constructing a common minority enemy, which usually coincides with the profile of the newcomer.

The fundamental question is: what factors explain the coexistence of such diametrically opposed positions regarding the guarantee of rights? Interest in these anti-democratic discourses stems from a social frustration born of the lack of decisive political responses. in the face of the successive socio-economic crises of recent decadesRather, it's an accumulation of actions that straddle the interests of the economic elites and those of the working class. This impossible balancing act is turning governance into a mere damage control exercise focused on political communication. The overprotection of private property over the right to life has left the most vulnerable people orphaned, devoid of political options that directly address their daily struggles from a relatable and inspiring perspective, offering a horizon of hope and transformative impact.

In this context of social stagnation, rhetoric such as fear of far-right parties or the "lesser evil" argument emerges. These discourses often seek nothing more than to garner votes and are not accompanied by measures capable of transforming the fractured reality that is the root of the growing support for reactionary proposals. Blaming everything on "polarization" effectively means abandoning political debate, fostering social immobility, and accepting a false equivalence between political proposals that guarantee rights and those that exclude them.