Fight or unite? A global view on how institutions moderate the link between affective polarization and political violence

Democracies face increasing levels of political tribalization as policy conflicts become ever more divisive, and political groups become affectively entrenched. This process of polarization is paralleled by an alleged increase in political violence in recent years. The January 6th United States Capitol attack, the murders of David Amess and Jo Cox in the UK and increasing reports of violence against politicians all show that polarization might turn to violence when conflicts become intractable. However, only a few studies have hitherto focused on the conditions under which polarization leads to violence, especially beyond the USA. Based on a cross-nationally comparative analysis of V-Dem and World Bank data in an exceptionally broad scope of 134 countries over time (1961-2021), we argue that the level of affective polarization in a country is indeed positively related to the occurrence of political violence in that country, but that this effect is moderated by specific institutions. In particular, we find that affective polarization has a lesser chance of evolving to violence in systems that allow for broad and inclusive participation in policy-making. However, we also find that, in some regions, the inclusion of political groups into the public sphere and the division of power between political parties can increase this effect. Institutions thus play an important, yet ambivalent role in this relationship.