Polarization Traps in the Struggle for Muslim Inclusion

• In Event: Elites, Immigration Policy, and the Politics of Division

Abstract

This is a study of polarization traps. Our objective is to bring to light why there is a way forward in the struggle for inclusion and, simultaneously, why the way forward carries the risk of going backward. A principal barrier to inclusion of Muslim minorities is the strength of exclusionary forces. But on the basis of a decade of research, our results show that there are terms on which inclusion of Muslim minorities is widely supported—by majorities of the public—in contemporary liberal democracies, where majorities are not themselves Muslim. Our objective is to take the next step and to bring out the dynamics of polarization traps. There are terms on which inclusion of Muslim minorities is widely supported, because they follow from widely shared values of contemporary liberal democracies. But there are terms on which their inclusion is widely opposed, just because they conflict with widely shared values of contemporary liberal democracies. These public opinion patterns are driven not by those who favor exclusion of Muslim minorities and their concerns, but by those who are open to minority inclusion. We propose that the main patterns of public opinion about questions of minority inclusion turns on this friction between core liberal values. The question this specific study addresses is, How well do citizens and their political representatives recognize these points of friction? How well do they judge where the majority stands on issues of Muslim inclusion on when and why they are open to it, and when and why they are not? Having identified such friction points in the soon to be published book manuscript, The Struggle for Inclusion: Muslim Minorities and the Democratic Ethos by Elisabeth Ivarsflaten and Paul Sniderman (Chicago University Press forthcoming 2021), this study takes the next step. It asks whether these patterns are recognized in society and by political representatives. To the extent that they are not, there is a heightened risk of polarization traps, whereby political conflict about how to weigh democratic principles against each other is charged as more fundamental conflict about the democratic system itself. The analysis will be based on data collected in a series of survey-embedded experiments fielded in 2020 and 2021 in samples of citizens in the U.S. and Norway, and in samples of citizens and political representatives in Norway.

Authors

• Paul M. Sniderman, Stanford University

• Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, University of Bergen