Interviews
Yanina Welp Polarisation, Depolarisation and the Role of Citizenship in Modern Democracy
Yanina Welp is a leading political scientist and expert on participatory democracy. With a strong academic and professional background, she has worked on numerous research projects on citizen participation mechanisms and their impact on contemporary democracies. She is currently a research associate at the Albert Hirschman Centre for Democracy in Switzerland and has published extensively on issues of citizen participation, democratisation and autocratisation.
How do you define polarisation and what are the key factors contributing to its growth in modern democracies? What are some effective strategies for depolarisation and how can they be applied in different political contexts?
The first thing I think it is important to note is that polarisation was the word chosen by the RAE as the word of the year in 2023. Polarisation is much talked about, but little thought is given to it. This is a widespread problem in the world of slogans and headlines.
Political science has a classic definition of polarisation as applied to the party system: polarisation is the ideological distance between parties. In contemporary discussion, polarisation is perceived as something negative. However, if we think of ideological distance between parties, this is nothing more than the normalisation of different worldviews that these parties should represent.
We live in a context of great polarisation, but in the past the opposite was true. The Washington Consensus in the Americas and the fall of the Berlin Wall are examples of processes that consolidated the idea that there was only one valid model: liberal democracy, inseparable from specific economic forms. In the 1990s, adjustment policies were the only option, depolarising and depoliticising the debate. Technocracy came before polarisation and populism. Polarisation is not always bad; the problem is what kind of polarisation and what consequences it has.
In the party system, polarisation is not only inevitable but also necessary. The question we must ask ourselves today is what kinds of polarisation exist and which of them harm democracy.
In the party system, polarisation is not only inevitable but also necessary. The question we must ask ourselves today is what kinds of polarisation exist and which of them harm democracy. The search for consensus may sound very nice, but it sometimes leads us to deny differences that are an essential part of a democratic ideal … . What matters is not eliminating disagreement but having fair and accepted methods of decision-making.
In the social sciences, there is an interesting academic production, especially in the United States, that distinguishes between ideological or programmatic polarisation, related to parties, and affective polarisation, which generates animosity. The latter creates what are called communities of meaning, where group identity is strengthened against the adversary. This is particularly negative because it generates hatreds and encourages uncritical alignment: a policy is supported or rejected according to who is proposing it, not its content. We are caught in a dilemma. And the way the debate is conducted is part of the problem, because we are all the time talking about how to depolarise. It’s fine to raise it, but not with the expectation that depolarising means ending differences or reaching consensus. Strategies should be geared towards generating constructive dialogues that do not violate rights.
How do you see polarisation impacting on local communities, especially in the context of the agonistic democracy proposed by Chantal Mouffe?
What was the French Revolution? The guillotine, chopping off heads because everyone was ‘too right’ and had little capacity to listen to others and agree. There is a problem there. I think we agree on the diagnosis, but sometimes we exaggerate the negativity of the state of affairs, especially because we do it from environments where we do not live so badly. This does not mean that there are no problems, but that not everything is as bad as it is. Catastrophist discourses are pernicious because they pave the way for punitive measures. It happens with other narratives that generate rejection of the parties. For example, corruption. We are constantly exposed to this discourse. And it is true, there is a lot of corruption, but not everything is corruption or lack of political vocation. There is an overvaluation of the purity of social movements and civil society activism, and a total discrediting of politics. Someone who enters politics from a social movement, after a period of time, what is he or she? Is he or she no longer a politician or a politician? Of course they are. So we have to avoid propagating discourses that erode trust more and more.
At Fundación Platoniq we work a lot with young people and we see that they are better at distinguishing between what is true and what is false than we are. We are more concerned about it, but they are beyond that. We have developed programmes between schools and librarians, comparing current migration issues with newspapers from 100 years ago. They are different populations and movements, but the same hate speeches.
In workshops with young people, I have seen that they reject the idea that ‘they are the future’ because it depoliticises them. We want solutions for them, but they must be in the debate. We should not ask too much of them, but incorporate their voices and experiences in a specific context. At the policy level, I think we need to work on the reliability of data. In the immigration debate, for example, we need reliable data to discuss and resolve. The data are not interpretable, I mean, 15% is 15%, but you can know with what criteria and data collection techniques you arrived at that 15% and then, yes, the interpretations of its consequences are diverse.
Narrative and communication strategies are essential to address polarisation. We need multiple strategies to reach the audience, using emotions and interactions to generate impact. It is important to incorporate these aspects, as they have a lot of potential.
How can deliberative democracy, through assemblies, effectively address polarising issues such as immigration or climate change without straying into sterile debates?
Yanina Welp: Many assemblies avoid addressing polarising issues, preferring to focus on more general issues where there is greater agreement. They tend not to include discussions on migration, for example. I wonder if there is a model assembly or participatory system that can effectively handle such polarising issues as migration or climate change without straying into sterile debates.
My focus is not so much on quantitative data as on the process itself and the rules of the game that everyone agrees on. Because if each side presents its own data, you can lose sight of the shared truth. It’s like football: you can lose a game but if the rules are respected, the result is legitimate. The same principle applies to electoral processes and how disputes about them are handled.
I see challenges in addressing these issues in the abstract because of the importance of adapting the process to its institutional context. For example, in Ireland, the model has worked well in certain cases because of the commitment of actors and the holding of referenda to ratify decisions.
However, there is a problematic expectation that deliberative assemblies solve problems without considering their broader institutional setting. In Spain, for example, the limited potential is due to the lack of clear mechanisms to implement the decisions of the assemblies. This is a complex problem that requires significant institutional changes beyond the assemblies themselves.
It is crucial to politicise and open up the process further, involving social movements and political parties in the assemblies. I believe this can be prioritised rather than simply focusing on descriptive representation of participants. The assemblies should be a space for vigorous and well-informed debate that includes diverse perspectives and constructive confrontations.
What are the most effective strategies for making assemblies inclusive and representative, especially in diverse political and social contexts?
Yanina Welp: We talk a lot about how assemblies can be more inclusive and representative, especially in settings like Barcelona or Madrid, which have different political and social contexts. This contrasts with places like Switzerland, where the direct referendum is an established tool that fits better in their institutional structure. In each place, it is essential to conduct a thorough diagnosis of the challenges and adapt participation models accordingly.
For example, the drawing of lots, while having their value, should not be the priority in any context. I believe it is more effective to encourage other types of collective action and social mobilisation. It is crucial to avoid over-regulation of citizen participation, as it can stifle local initiative and discourage those who really seek to make change from the bottom up.
I believe that while the assemblies can be part of the solution, we need to focus on creating an institutional environment that supports them and integrates them effectively into the broader democratic process.
I believe that while the assemblies can be part of the solution, we need to focus on creating an institutional environment that supports them and integrates them effectively into the broader democratic process. This involves not only understanding their role within deliberative democracy, but also improving the responsiveness and implementation of their decisions to ensure their long-term effectiveness.
The raffled assemblies are a very refined model. But the aspiration should be to build social capital, which is the most important thing and what guarantees better coexistence, and perhaps other methods would be more effective. In our context, many things are being done, and they should be more, not less. The problem is that they are not very representative. In the past, participatory budgets were the most common form of participation in Europe. In my opinion, and having lived in Switzerland, I think the best form of participation is the referendum. It has been suggested to combine it with citizens’ assemblies. All is not yet said and done. It would be interesting if, on issues that are very divisive between the parties, a model similar to Ireland’s could ideally be called, but with more capacity for citizen activation. Belgium has permanent drawn assemblies, and in Switzerland, local councils invite citizens on a permanent basis.
In short, there should be a reflection on democracy and institutionalisation, which works today and tomorrow ceases to do so. And instead of looking for the perfect formula, we should think that things can stop working, and work from an awareness of this. We should not understand participation separately from the party system. If we do not find any alternative, the parties must also listen. We could look for a format that integrates them and that they have to respond. In other words, a citizens’ initiative could emerge from a recommendation. Such initiatives could be taken directly to assemblies.
‘When and how do you consider that the voice of those affected should be ‘privileged’ in deliberative spaces and processes, especially in the creation of political agendas, and how important is co-creation with those affected in the effectiveness of public policies?’
Yanina Welp: In terms of agenda setting, it would indeed be interesting to distribute the agenda in such a way that those most affected have a significant voice. There is a long tradition of public policy studies that show the importance of co-creation with those affected. However, each context needs to define well how to integrate people, without idealising radical transformation. It is crucial to include the vision of those affected in the agenda-setting process, as the effectiveness of public policies designed without the people is very low.
For example, in Latin America, housing programmes that do not consider local needs often fail. Co-creation is essential, although it must be clearly defined in each context. This is not to mythologise revolutionary ideals, but to recognise both the inefficiency of technocratic responses and the limitations of radical change. Even in the French revolution, certain power dynamics continued. It is crucial to combine different approaches to participation, integrating politicians, social movements and mechanisms such as raffled assemblies, all following clear rules.
This could motivate politicians to see the sense of citizen participation and reduce the fear of co-optation. Knowing concrete examples of variations in assemblies could be useful, although I have no direct knowledge of them. In any case, it is important that assemblies are inclusive and flexible, adapting to specific needs and contexts in order to be truly effective.
This relates to the question of how to give more voice in the agenda setting of these assemblies to those most affected. We work a lot on mental health and immigration issues, do you think it would be valid for the agenda setting to be more distributed, bringing citizens together and ensuring diversity and representativeness?
Yanina Welp: There is a long tradition of studies on public policy design that we should review. In every instance it must be clear what is expected, because expertise is always needed in certain aspects, such as mental health medication. We must define how to integrate people at different stages of the process. We cannot escape from co-creating the agenda with those most affected.
How can algorithms be designed to take into account intersections of identities and not just individual demographic characteristics, especially in a context of increasing algorithmic discrimination?
Yanina Welp: What you propose, about the algorithm and representativeness in assemblies, is interesting. I don’t know of specific examples, but they probably exist. Maybe the Irish have more information on this. As for the dramaturgy in these processes, the rules of the game must be clear. It is important to manage the discourse in such a way that one’s own opinion is formed first before other opinions are introduced. The idea is that there should be a mixture of the drawn, social movements and politicians, all together, accepting common rules and methods. This could make politicians see a sense in these processes. Finally, I would say that there is a fear of co-optation, but we have to get out of the ivory tower and put these concepts into practice.
Exploring deliberative processes of Collective memory
Are there deliberative processes or citizen assemblies to reach consensus on visions of the past or to agree on a balanced narrative of polarised historical events?
Yanina Welp: Working on historical memory involves a lot of collective work. I am not aware that the concept ‘citizens’ assembly’ has been used, but I know that there is a lot of conversation and collective work. I think it is up to the community of historians to sort out the facts. Memory is something else, and there, based on history, collective narratives acquire their value.
Imagining cases
In an imaginary exercise, one could consider possible applications of citizens’ assemblies in Europe to address historical and cultural issues. For example, one could imagine that in Northern Ireland, after decades of conflict, citizens’ assemblies are established to discuss the legacy of the conflict. These assemblies would allow people from different communities and perspectives to share their experiences and visions of the past, thus contributing to reconciliation and mutual understanding.
What are the main challenges and benefits of using citizens’ assemblies to address controversial historical issues, as we have imagined in the cases of France and Spain?
Yanina Welp: In Colombia, among the peace-building programmes, there were dialogues between paramilitaries and members of the FARC; I believe that in the Basque Country, dialogues of this type were also promoted. There are very important experiences of listening. The assembly is another format that can be explored. I don’t know to what extent the drawing of lots should be at the centre of the issue. Perhaps we should think more about objectives and scalability before giving so much centrality to descriptive representation.
