In his latest book, Lebanese mathematician Nassim Taleb distinguishes between unexpected events—”black swans”—and predictable dynamics that follow a recognizable logic: trends. The fascinating and unsettling aspect of black swans is that their sudden emergence, impossible to foresee, can abruptly alter existing trends. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, the 2007 economic crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, among other events, disrupted and transformed various global processes. In the electoral sphere, political polarization in Latin America is neither a surprising nor isolated phenomenon but rather a sustained trend that has shaped the pulse of democracies in the last years.
An example of this is what Ecuador is currently experiencing. In just two weeks, the final stage of its electoral calendar will take place, and a new president will be elected. The unexpectedly strong performance of Luisa González hindered the possibility of the current president, Daniel Noboa, securing victory in the first round. Noboa’s failure was his inability to reach 50% of the votes, while González’s success lay in preventing a 10-point gap between them. One of the key factors behind this outcome was undoubtedly the strategy of polarization. However, the historical series of electoral results in Ecuador shows that electoral polarization is not a new phenomenon. When the values obtained from the electoral polarization index are smoothed using a fourth-degree polynomial curve, a constant increase can be observed since the mid-1990s. This upward trend is also reflected in the South American average. However, what distinguishes Ecuador is its lower fluctuation compared to the region—where peaks were recorded in 2006 and 2025, with declines toward 1994 and 2020—as well as higher current levels of polarization within the country.
Polarization has been widely debated in the social sciences, particularly regarding its effects, which are as diverse as they are controversial. Among the most frequently mentioned are the deterioration of democratic discourse—characterized by aggressive and disrespectful rhetoric among political actors—and gridlock in policy-making, especially in the legislative sphere. Even more concerning is its potential to trigger social conflicts, particularly in contexts where two similarly sized groups compete for power, creating a dangerous bimodality that increases the likelihood of confrontations.
Nevertheless, the literature also documents positive effects of polarization, such as increased political and electoral participation, strengthened party identification, and greater clarity in competing proposals, which facilitates accountability and improves representation. An additional, less explored but equally relevant aspect is that polarization, by structuring the political space around clear and coherent positions, can contribute to stabilizing public opinion, giving consistency to citizens’ preferences and facilitating decision-making processes in both electoral and governmental contexts. Paraphrasing Milton Friedman’s famous maxim that inflation is, at all times and in all places, a monetary phenomenon, we could say that public opinion is, at all times and in all places, a contingent phenomenon. The only constant in it is its contingency. However, factors like polarization could generate greater stability.
Argentina is not exempt from this polarized climate. In a recent study, the DeepResearch team conducted focus groups with centennials (18-25 years old) living in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area (AMBA), distinguishing three electoral segments: voters of Javier Milei, voters of Kirchnerism, and undecided voters. When analyzing the attributes these young people consider desirable in a political leader, we confirmed that polarization remains a prevailing phenomenon, although we also identified tactical elements that could mitigate it.
Different attributes define what each segment sees as the ideal leader. Among Milei’s voters, confidence, international relevance, and authenticity stand out. Kirchnerist voters particularly value oratory skills, being “deconstructed,” the ability to form teams, and a cordial relationship with other politicians. Undecided voters, on the other hand, prioritize attributes such as transparency, professionalism, dialogue, and integrity (lack of corruption). Evidently, these attributes vary among segments and create gaps that are difficult to bridge. However, as revealed by a Venn diagram, there are also points of convergence. One key to deactivating current polarization could be focusing political communication on these shared attributes. Among them, five are highly valued by all three groups: the ability to solve concrete problems, having well-defined values, consistency between words and actions, communication skills, and strategic planning capacity.
Black swans are unpredictable, and their effects can be disruptive. However, Latin America coexists with a level of polarization that, far from being a novelty, appears to be a well-established trend. Undoing what has been built through electoral strategies, amplified by media dynamics, and internalized by society may be one of the great challenges of our time. The truth is that not everything is set in stone: there are elements that could help rebuild bridges, generate new majorities, and reshape the political landscape.
*Machine translation proofread by Janaína da Silva.
Autor
Professor at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and the University of Belgrano, Argentina, where he also conducts research on political and electoral behavior, political communication, and political psychology. He holds a Master's degree from FLACSO and is a political scientist and sociologist from the UBA.
