In an interview with the ECPS, Dr. Andrew O’Donohue, Postdoctoral Fellow at Princeton University and Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, examines how political polarization, populist mobilization, and judicial institutions shape democratic backsliding. Drawing on comparative research across the United States, Turkey, Israel, and Brazil, Dr. O’Donohue argues that polarization becomes particularly dangerous when political divisions harden into antagonistic identities. He explores how populist leaders exploit these divisions, manipulate judicial institutions, and undermine democratic accountability. Challenging conventional assumptions about judicial independence, he warns that courts can themselves enable democratic backsliding. Yet he emphasizes that democratic resilience remains possible through opposition mobilization, institutional reform, and coalitions capable of defending constitutional safeguards against executive overreach.
Interview by Selcuk Gultasli*
Political polarization has become one of the defining challenges facing contemporary democracies, not merely because it divides electorates but because it can transform political competition into an existential struggle between antagonistic identities. Against the backdrop of renewed debates over executive power following the 2026 US midterm elections, mounting judicial pressure on Turkey’s political opposition, and Israel’s ongoing constitutional crisis, the relationship between polarization, populism, and democratic backsliding has acquired renewed urgency. Yet polarization is not inherently destructive. As Dr. Andrew O’Donohue observes, “Sometimes polarization can be highly democratizing.”The danger emerges when political disagreements harden into seemingly irreconcilable identities: “When polarization becomes an aspect of political identity, it can be very dangerous for democracy.”
In this wide-ranging interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. O’Donohue, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Princeton University and a Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, examines how polarization shapes democratic resilience and authoritarian consolidation across the United States, Turkey, Israel, and Brazil. Holding a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University, O’Donohue specializes in law and courts, democracy and authoritarianism, and Middle East politics. His comparative scholarship, including the co-edited volume Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political Polarization, challenges conventional assumptions about democratic institutions and the political consequences of polarization.
Dr. O’Donohue argues that polarization operates both as an independent driver of democratic backsliding and as a strategic instrument manipulated by political leaders. In today’s media environment, outrage reinforces partisan antagonism, while populist leaders exploit these divisions to justify institutional transgressions. Polarization, he warns, enables leaders “to get away with anti-democratic actions in the name of protecting one side” while encouraging supporters to overlook abuses committed by their own political camp.
This dynamic becomes especially consequential when courts enter the political battlefield. Through what he calls court baiting, populist leaders deliberately advance popular but legally vulnerable policies, forcing judges into a dilemma between tolerating executive overreach and appearing to obstruct the popular will. Yet Dr. O’Donohue cautions that judicial independence alone cannot guarantee democratic protection: “Independent courts can weaken citizens’ rights, overturn elections, empower unelected elites, or engage in anti-democratic behavior themselves.”
His comparative assessment also raises serious warnings about Turkey’s authoritarian trajectory, Israel’s competitive authoritarianism, and the limited effectiveness of prosecuting illiberal leaders in deeply polarized societies. Nevertheless, he rejects political fatalism, insisting that “polarization doesn’t mean stasis.” New political movements can disrupt entrenched divisions, while courts can resist executive aggrandizement when supported by elected officials, civil society, and international actors.
Ultimately, Dr. O’Donohue’s central message is that democratic resilience requires more than independent institutions: it demands political competition without existential antagonism, effective judicial allies, and sustained institutional reform.
