Voorbij de tweepartijenkloof: hoe coalitiedynamieken en ideologische oriëntaties affectieve polarisatie in Europa herdefiniëren

Overview

This dissertation examines affective polarization in European multiparty democracies, challenging the direct applicability of a concept originating in U.S. two-party contexts. Using data from 423,524 respondents across twenty democracies, the research investigates how coalition dynamics, the radical right, and ideological camps shape partisan affect and its democratic consequences. The dissertation is structured in two parts: the first analyzes elite-level factors including coalition behavior, accommodation of radical-right parties, and ostracization strategies; the second examines citizen-level heterogeneity in partisan identification and attitudes. The research addresses whether affective polarization operates uniformly across institutional contexts and whether its consequences for democratic stability are contingent on multiparty system characteristics.

Methods and approach

The dissertation employs observational, longitudinal, and experimental data spanning twenty democracies. The experimental components enable causal inference for specific relationships, while observational and longitudinal approaches support analysis of patterns across contexts and time. The research design accommodates the complexity of multiparty systems by examining both elite strategic behavior and citizen attitudinal diversity. The dissertation consists of six empirical articles, each addressing distinct aspects of affective polarization: three focus on elite-driven dynamics related to coalition formation, radical-right accommodation, and party ostracization; three examine citizen attitudes including identification with ideological camps rather than single parties, heterogeneity among radical-right supporters, and the coexistence of affective polarization with democratic support.

Results

Elite cooperation through coalition formation reduces intergroup hostility only when perceived as successful by citizens. Center-right accommodation of radical-right parties does not diminish affective divisions but redirects them toward the political center. Elite ostracization of radical parties intensifies animosity toward those parties. At the citizen level, most European respondents identify with broader ideological camps rather than single parties and exhibit lower levels of affective polarization than single-party identifiers. Radical-right supporters demonstrate substantial internal heterogeneity; only those who strongly reject both center-left and center-right parties show meaningfully reduced democratic support. Affective polarization in Europe frequently coexists with robust democratic support, contradicting assumptions that affective polarization inherently undermines democratic stability. These patterns indicate that affective boundaries and their consequences are contingent on institutional features specific to multiparty systems.

Implications

The findings challenge U.S.-centric frameworks for understanding affective polarization and its democratic risks. European multiparty systems contain institutional features that can channel affective polarization toward democratic engagement rather than erosion, contingent on elite performance and gatekeeping. Coalition dynamics, the contested legitimacy of radical parties, and the prevalence of ideological camp identification create malleable affective fault lines that elites can reshape through cooperation, signaling, and boundary maintenance. The research cautions against treating affective polarization as uniformly detrimental, noting its association with political engagement. However, this institutional resilience is not guaranteed: failure of elite cooperation or abdication of gatekeeping roles risks hardening politics into binary conflict, potentially driving multiparty democracies toward decline. The dissertation argues for context-sensitive analysis of affective polarization that accounts for party system structure, elite strategic choices, and citizen attitudinal diversity rather than assuming universal mechanisms or consequences.