How would you feel if you had a child married to a PT or bolsonarista? That’s the question the Genial/Quaest poll asked voters who announced their intention to vote for either Lula or Bolsonaro in the hypothetical runoff of October’s presidential election.
This question has been adopted by research institutes in the United States to measure the level of polarization of Democratic and Republican voters. The idea is to gauge the discontent and desire for social distancing of people who support a rival political group. This phenomenon is called emotional polarization.
In the survey conducted in May, more PT members were, on the contrary, unhappy that a boy or girl married someone who was seen as an enemy in the group.
Of those who voted for Lula, 29% said they would be very unhappy about it, and 14% said they would feel unhappy, 43% overall. 57% of the respondents would not be unhappy.
19% of Bolsonaro voters say they would be very unhappy with it, while 9% are unhappy, 28% overall. Another 71% say they will not be unhappy. The margin of error is four points.
For measurement purposes, the poll considers voters “polarized” who would feel very unhappy or unhappy with the situation.
Based on this, Genial/Quaest calculates that around 33% of all Brazilian voters are emotionally polarized. That’s one out of every three people.
The figures are not much different from those measured in the United States.
Among Democrats, President Joe Biden’s party is 38% polarized (16% very unhappy and 22% unhappy, hypothetical marriage) and among Republicans, former President Donald Trump’s party is also 38% polarized (13% very unhappy and 25% unhappy). Data are from The Economist/YouGov 2020 survey.
Further dissatisfaction of Lula supporters is the result of the economy and the pandemic
The survey points to the economy and the pandemic as reasons why the PT candidate’s voters are more polarized than their PL rival. Lula’s voters tend to blame Bolsonaro for these issues, and those of the current president say social distancing and the war in Ukraine should be blamed.
For example, among the former president’s electorate, whose ability to pay the bills has improved over the past three months, polarized voters represent just over a third, while the majority is unpolarized. At the same time, less than a third of Lula voters are polarized, claiming Bolsonaro was more right than wrong in tackling Covid-19.
The polarized electorate is also the subgroup that currently receives the most consolidated votes, which does not make room for an alternative candidate or candidate. According to the survey, among Bolsonaro voters, those who are emotionally polarized trust the electronic voting machine less than those who do not. They also tend to post more political videos on social media than non-polar ones.
Among Lula’s voters, who had more confidence in the electronic ballot box, no difference was found between the two groups, namely between polarization and trust in the ballot box. Among both the polarized and the non-polarized, the number of people who declared that they shared political videos is also low.
Finally, he argues that Bolsonaro, who responded twice as much as Bolsonaro’s polarized group, did not admit defeat compared to non-polarized groups.
The President is attacking the electronic voting system and the Supreme Electoral Court. More than once, he has questioned the reliability of the elections and hinted that he may not recognize the results coming out of the polls.
From foe to foe: the risks of the dehumanization process
Polarization is seen as a natural part of the political game, as it is part of a process by which citizens realize that their position is similar or hostile to that of other people and organize in groups to defend themselves. The problem is that this polarization deepens to the point of wishing evil to those who think differently.
Reduced contact between polarized groups leads to less information about what they want, desire and do. Without information about the other, it is easier to fill in the blanks with false information. The unknown causes fear and is seen as a threat. At this point, what is a political enemy to be defeated becomes an enemy to be destroyed.
This justifies the behavior of authoritarian leaders who promised to eliminate those who “threatened” their followers with their beliefs and lifestyles. A process of violent dehumanization, as in the US elections and then the invasion of Congress on January 6, 2021.
source: Noticias
