New Fragility: Polarisation Challenges Digital Democracy

Established democracies are facing governance stresses once associated primarily with fragile and conflict-affected states. Polarisation is eroding institutional trust, fragmenting civic norms, and reducing societies’ ability to solve problems collectively. This emerging vulnerability has been described as a new form of fragility.

At the same time, governments and civil society organisations are increasingly adopting digital tools to support public participation. These deliberative technologies hold promise for enhancing engagement, but in polarised environments, they also carry risks. Their success depends on the same principles that have guided peacebuilding efforts for decades.

Across regions, political dynamics now mirror those found in post-conflict settings. Deepening identity divides, distrust of institutions, and competing factual narratives are reshaping public life even in countries long considered stable. Polarisation has become a structural governance challenge. When institutions lose legitimacy and fear drives decision-making, formal capacity alone is insufficient to maintain stability.

Deliberative technologies are being introduced with the aim of expanding participation and strengthening decision-making. These platforms are designed for structured listening and collaborative problem-solving. Yet many are deployed in contexts marked by distrust, grievance, and political contestation. Digital participation cannot succeed if it is layered onto institutions already perceived as partisan or unresponsive. Without the operating disciplines of peacebuilding, these tools risk amplifying the very divisions they are intended to mitigate.

Polarisation shapes this fragility in three key ways. First, political allegiance is increasingly tied to perceived identity threats, with affective polarisation narrowing the space for compromise. Second, fragmented information ecosystems reward outrage and accelerate misinformation, leaving citizens with conflicting understandings of basic facts. Third, institutions meant to moderate conflict—courts, election bodies, public administrators, and independent media—are being reframed as partisan actors. When these institutions lose legitimacy, societies fall into predictable conflict patterns, where escalation becomes the norm and compromise appears suspect.

Recent developments in the United States illustrate these pressures in a consolidated democracy. Centralising administrative power, weakening civil service structures, and politicising technical governance issues have created conditions resembling those of fragile states. Large-scale layoffs reduced institutional memory and policy capacity, oversight mechanisms were politicised, and rules governing public sector technology, including AI, became instruments of ideological conflict rather than public stewardship. Similar patterns are emerging elsewhere, demonstrating how democratic foundations can become fragile when institutions are systematically undermined.

To address this new fragility, deliberative technology must be treated as a governance challenge, not a technical solution. A peacebuilding-informed framework offers guidance based on three foundations. First, governance must take precedence over gadgets. Deliberative platforms are never neutral; their design, oversight, and data management structure power and influence. Transparent decision rules and independent oversight are essential, with mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder boards or community data trusts helping ensure deliberation remains a civic, not commercial, function.

Second, impact measurement must replace engagement metrics. Participation numbers alone do not reflect democratic value. What matters is whether public input shapes institutional decisions in traceable ways. Demonstrating this link is essential for rebuilding trust. Without it, digital participation risks being symbolic and deepening cynicism.

Third, peacebuilding principles serve as vital safeguards. Conflict sensitivity requires careful assessment of power dynamics before deployment. Trauma awareness protects emotional safety. Inclusion demands active measures to bring marginalised voices into decision-making. Sequencing recognises that facilitated dialogue may be necessary before deliberation in highly polarised contexts.

Implementing these principles requires concrete steps. Public agencies should adopt procurement standards requiring open-source platforms, transparent algorithms, and independent oversight. Funders should assess initiatives based on democratic impact rather than engagement metrics, using accountability scorecards to track how public input influences institutional decisions. Professionalising digital facilitators through training in conflict sensitivity, power analysis, and trauma-aware engagement will further strengthen safe and effective online deliberation.

The boundary between “fragile” and “stable” democracies is no longer clear. Polarisation acts as systemic fragility, eroding institutions from within. Peacebuilding must therefore become a core democratic skill. The question is not whether to embrace digital participation tools, but how to ground them in governance practices that enable societies to manage conflict constructively.

Early examples are already emerging, from citizen assemblies addressing climate policy to AI-powered platforms promising to transform public consultation. Each deployment offers opportunities to apply these lessons. By prioritising governance over gadgets, impact over engagement, and peacebuilding principles as safeguards, digital participation can help build a more resilient democratic future. Without such an approach, the risk is that techno-solutionism will accelerate the very fragmentation these tools aim to resolve.