n recent years, polarisation has become a significant challenge for many societies and nations. Our country is no exception. Political rivalries among mainstream political parties have deepened and morphed into entrenched enmities.

Many supporters of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf use every opportunity to denounce, ridicule and abuse leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Peoples Party; hurl personal insults and accuse them of corruption; even treason. Social media platforms are used for launching partisan propaganda and spewing vitriol against one another. The polarisation is no-longer issue-based. Instead, it has evolved into affective polarisation where people avoid affiliating with members of the opposing group.

This has led to dangerous consequences at state, societal and individual levels. At the state level, the polarisation has created political gridlocks. Parliamentary sessions frequently descend into chaos with debates dominated by vilification of opponents rather than constructive exchanges. Such bitter exchanges at the legislative forums hamper important policy decisions. Televised speeches – characterised by personal attacks and prioritisation of party rhetoric – erode public trust in state institutions and their capacity to deliver. This loss of public confidence has escalated into a broad distrust of democratic institutions. At the societal level, polarisation has disrupted dialogue as individuals adopt more extreme stances. Families, communities and workplaces are fraught with divisions along political lines.

Political polarisation has also taken a significant toll on the emotional and psychological health of many individuals. The relentless exposure to the contentious and divisive political discourse through various channels – social media, news outlets and interpersonal – has led to heightened stress and anxiety. It has compromised some people’s ability to develop reflective thinking. People feel pressured to defend their stand and, therefore, conform to dominant viewpoints on one side or the other. This lack of openness to consider alternative perspectives is undermining the potential of the youth to participate in democratic processes. Moreover, the increased stress has led many to withdraw from social engagement, which only worsens their mental health.

Social media has played a key role in this dynamic of heightened polarisation by creating individual/ party silos. On some social media platforms, people are primarily connected to others who share similar viewpoints, limiting their exposure to cross-cutting content. The algorithms of platforms like Facebook and YouTube are designed to prioritise and recommend material that maximises user engagement. Since individuals are more likely to engage with the material that aligns with their current beliefs, echo chambers develop overtime, reinforcing their biases and opinions. Research has shown that the structure of individuals’ networks i.e., diversity of connections, is a significant predictor of the susceptibility of their minds to polarising material.

Televised speeches – characterised by personal attacks and prioritisation of party rhetoric – erode public trust in state institutions and their capacity to deliver. This loss of public confidence has escalated into broad distrust of democratic institutions.

While polarisation of the political elite often trickles down to the grassroots level, individuals and communities may take various steps to mitigate its effects on everyday life. One such approach is to establish a domain separate from political life. This can be achieved by focusing on community life through shared public spaces and collective activities. Face-to-face interactions in these spaces will help individuals understand other viewpoints. Such interactions challenge preconceived stereotypes about other groups and foster mutual respect. Research in psychology suggests that in-person engagement reduces animosity towards ‘others’ and helps in developing an empathetic standpoint.

People are often hesitant to participate in shared spaces because they fear that these spaces will reflect broader political conflicts. However, this problem can be mitigated by organising collective activities around non-political aspects of everyday life. Moreover, the purpose of community life is not to eliminate political divisions. Instead, it seeks to create activities that engage people transcending political differences and provide opportunity for cooperation despite their diversity. Community activities remind individuals that politics is merely one aspect of their identity.

It is also well known that people are driven to polarised stances partly to fulfill their sense of belonging. Community life provides them an alternative means of meeting this psychological need.

The development of an apolitical domain of life can take many forms. For the youth, educational institutions can help enhance their participation in volunteer activities through mandatory community service programs. Students with diverse skills can assist communities in launching initiatives to address common issues. By enabling the youth to work with communities inhabited by individuals of various political affiliations, these mandatory volunteer efforts will increase their receptivity to alternative views.

Adults and seniors can similarly initiate collaborative social projects at the community level. For example, a doctor can host free workshops to raise awareness about mental health issues, help people identify early signs of stress and provide lifestyle guidelines for coping with stress. This can contribute to reducing the social stigma attached to mental health issues. Similarly, an artist can help organise events that implement ideas for beautifying the area. Currently, such efforts are often sporadic and disorganised due to the lack of public and inclusive spaces. Local governments can play an important role in providing these spaces like community halls, playgrounds and public libraries. Shared spaces offer a venue for community projects, giving the local community a sense of shared ownership.

Activities based on community life can cultivate a culture of civic engagement. Such engagement not only enriches life by providing it with a sense of purpose and meaning, but also helps individuals develop a nuanced perspective, which reduces their inclination towards polarisation.

The writer, a Rhodes Scholar, is currently an academic based in the UK. He can be reached at naumanlawyer@gmail.com.