![]() However, affective and ideological polarization interact, and ideological polarization exacerbates the effect of affective polarization when extreme parties are excluded from the coalition option. In fact, its effect remains robust to the inclusion of ideology-related variables. We also demonstrate that affective polarization does not operate through the same channel as ideological polarization. This effect remains true regardless of the composition of coalitions. Our analysis contributes to the literature by showing how affective polarization reduces the willingness to accept any type of coalition, even in a rally-around-the-flag context. Not only does the survey offer the best data to test our ideas, but Belgium also incarnates the understudied and complex character of polarization in multiparty settings, which has profound consequences for coalition formation. It is especially true since Belgium was heavily hit at the early stage of the pandemic. In so doing, we can exploit the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, characterized by a rally-around-the-flag dynamic, as a context that would be the least favorable to see polarization impacting voters' coalition preferences. The survey is composed of multiple waves and allows us to collect data about polarization and coalition preferences in both pre- and post-pandemic periods. To do so, we use the 2019 RepResent panel voter survey, which has been carried out in Belgium since 2019. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies investigating empirically if affective polarization has an impact on coalition preferences in general and on various coalition options. We conceive the COVID-19 pandemic as an exogenous shock to the system that generates a setting of least likely case for affective polarization to affect voters' coalition preferences. In light of this context, this paper analyses the relationship between affective and ideological polarization (our two independent variables) and voters' coalition preferences (our dependent variable), during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Polarization-both affective and ideological-could potentially reduce voters' readiness to compromise, and thereby jeopardize support for coalition governments. The tendency among party supporters to view other parties and their supporters as disliked out-groups, while holding positive in-party feelings, has been labeled as affective polarization ( Iyengar et al., 2012 Lelkes, 2016). Recently, researchers have started to define political polarization based on people's feelings toward parties and their supporters. Scholars have long defined political polarization based on ideological divergences ( Abramowitz and Saunders, 2008). On the other hand, political scientists have emphasized how polarization is rapidly spreading throughout western democracies, including multiparty systems where coalition governments are the rule. This could potentially have had spillover effects and generated an increased acceptance of cross-party compromise and a wider acceptance of coalitions ( Jørgensen et al., 2021). On the one hand, research has shown how the COVID-19 pandemic, at least in its first phase, generated a “rally-around-the-flag” effect, i.e., “the tendency of public opinion to become more favorable toward political leaders in times of crisis” ( Johansson et al., 2021), which fostered diffuse and specific political support ( Cardenal et al., 2021 Louwerse et al., 2021). ![]() This paper contributes to this literature by looking at how citizens' acceptance of compromise has been affected by two major, yet opposing factors in the recent years: the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing polarization. The existing literature stresses the role of ideology and broad political attitudes, as they affect voters' acceptance of political compromise ( Plescia and Aichholzer, 2017 Plescia and Eberl, 2021). ![]() Moreover, we know even less about what drives these preferences. While coalition governments are the norm in Western Europe, voters' coalition preferences are surprisingly understudied ( Debus and Müller, 2014). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |