AgoraAn open square of thought

Debate

Democracy, Truth and Polarisation

Falsehoods can reach millions within hours, and large parts of some electorates reject facts that courts and election officials have established. How can a democracy defend factual truth without making anyone the arbiter of what is true?

Disinformation, conspiracy theories, algorithmically sorted news feeds and ever more convincing AI images have made “post-truth” a familiar diagnosis. In some democracies opposing camps disagree not only about values but about basic facts: in the United States more than sixty lawsuits against the result of the 2020 presidential election failed, yet at the end of 2023 only 62 per cent of adults said Joe Biden had been legitimately elected. Philosophy and sociology help to understand what is at stake: the fragility of factual truth, the conditions of public deliberation, lying and indifference to truth, propaganda that exploits democratic ideals, and the divides that polarisation grows from. Open is who may decide what counts as misinformation.

Open in the star map

Positions

Factual truth as common ground

Arendt distinguishes rational truths from factual truths – what happened, who did what – and argues that factual truths are especially fragile, because they can be denied, rewritten or drowned in lies. Politics nonetheless depends on them: truth, she writes, is “the ground on which we stand and the sky that stretches above us”. In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” she warns that the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is the person for whom the distinction between fact and fiction no longer exists.

Held by

Deliberation in the public sphere

Habermas holds that democratic legitimacy comes from public deliberation in which, ideally, only the “unforced force of the better argument” counts. This requires a functioning public sphere in which citizens form opinions through shared media and mutual criticism. In 2022 he argued that digital platforms are fragmenting this sphere into self-confirming partial publics, threatening the inclusive debate that deliberative democracy needs.

Held by

Bullshit and propaganda

Frankfurt distinguishes the bullshitter from the liar: the liar still cares about the truth in order to conceal it, while the bullshitter is indifferent to it and cares only about the impression made – which makes bullshit “a greater enemy of the truth than lies are”. Stanley analyses how propaganda in democracies works by exploiting democratic ideals themselves, using words like “freedom” or “the people” to undermine them, and how fascist politics replaces shared reality with myth, grievance and a division between “us” and “them”.

Held by

The right to justification

Forst holds that the most basic claim of every person is a right to justification: no norm or institution may be imposed on people that could not be justified to them as free and equal, by reasons that are reciprocal and general. Democracy is the political practice of such mutual justification, so claims made in politics must be open to shared scrutiny. Polarisation becomes dangerous where opponents stop treating each other as people to whom reasons are owed.

Held by

Polarisation as felt division

Sociologists ask why polarisation feels the way it does. Hochschild spent five years with Tea Party supporters in Louisiana (Strangers in Their Own Land, 2016) and reconstructed their “deep story”: of waiting patiently in line for the American Dream while others seem to cut in – a story felt as true, which she tried to understand across an “empathy wall”. Reckwitz describes a new divide between a highly educated, urban new middle class and the old middle and working classes, who feel culturally devalued; populism is in part a revolt against that devaluation. Illouz (The Emotional Life of Populism, 2023) analyses how fear, disgust, resentment and love of the nation are mobilised against liberal democracy.

Held by

Read more

As of 10/2026. Summaries for orientation – the sources give the full arguments. · How Agora is made

Open in the star map