Digital Polarisation and the Future of Peace: Why Governance Must Catch Up With Power

Image: SkillUp / shutterstock.com

Democracy today is at a critical juncture. Political systems worldwide face pressures that once would have been extraordinary: accelerating authoritarianism, deepening civic fragmentation, and collapsing public trust. What distinguishes this moment from earlier democratic crises is the role of the digital environment. Our information sphere has become both a catalyst and an accelerant of political division, distorting the conditions under which democratic societies deliberate, compromise, and solve problems.

The effects are now concrete and measurable. They appear in conflict-affected settings, fragile democracies, and mature political systems alike. Platform-driven polarisation has reshaped civic life far faster than many anticipated, hitting hardest those most vulnerable to instability. Alexandra Geese, Member of the European Parliament and a long-time digital rights advocate, offered a powerful lens during her address at Build Peace 2025, underscoring the human stakes of digital governance.

The Build Peace 2025 conference was organized in Barcelona 21–23 November 2025 by Build Up and the International Catalan Institute for Peace (ICIS) in cooperation with the Toda Peace Institute (TPI) and other partners. The Toda Peace Institute organized an initial/preparatory workshop on 20 November, focussing on the use of digital technology in deliberative dialogue and how to counter polarisation in social media. This was also the theme of a stream of workshops organized by the TPI during Build Peace 2025, which had 340 participants.

Drawing on encounters with Ukrainian prisoners of war and American parents whose children were harmed by digital platforms, Geese reminded participants that digital governance is not an abstract policy domain. Its consequences are immediate, intimate, and deeply political. They are signals of a system failing to protect dignity, autonomy, and the preconditions for peace.

Geese's framing is blunt: today's polarisation is not organic. It is engineered. Algorithmic systems that prioritise content based on engagement, effectively rewarding outrage and division, are central drivers of the problem. Whistleblower testimony, including Frances Haugen's disclosures, shows that certain emotional reactions are weighted far more heavily than others, with anger often counting several times more than approval. The result is predictable: content most associated with democratic breakdown—fear-mongering, dehumanisation, conspiracy—travels the farthest.

This dynamic has direct implications for peace. Polarisation of this intensity is not background noise; it is a structural risk factor. Research from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute confirms that rising polarisation strongly correlates with democratic erosion and institutional instability. In fragile settings, digital manipulation accelerates cycles of mistrust and retaliation. In established democracies, it undermines negotiation and consensus-building—the core mechanisms by which societies solve collective problems.

A second trend Geese emphasised is the political nature of amplification architecture. Studies across Europe indicate that extremist content, particularly from far-right networks, is systematically advantaged in current ranking systems. Investigations by Sky News in 2025 further showed that platform-level decisions at X increased the visibility of extreme content while suppressing moderate voices. These are not anomalies. They represent structural choices by private actors who control the infrastructure of public discourse.

Regulation is beginning to catch up, but enforcement lags. The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) identifies engagement-based ranking as a systemic risk and requires major platforms to assess and mitigate associated harms. Yet implementation has been uneven, and platform resistance has grown. Meanwhile, outside the EU, regulatory gaps have allowed targeted manipulation to persist.

The UNDP Human Development Report 2025 makes the broader point clear: technological capability without accountability widens inequalities, erodes agency, and undermines collective problem-solving. It argues for "development pathways that expand choice rather than narrow it," a principle consistent with Geese's warning that digital systems must enhance—not constrain—human autonomy.

For peacebuilders, the implications are direct. Traditional conflict drivers—political exclusion, resource competition, weak governance—remain vital, but they no longer capture the full picture. Digital architectures now shape perceptions of identity, threat, and legitimacy: core elements of conflict behaviour. When platforms amplify fear and grievance, they accelerate tensions that peacebuilding interventions struggle to contain. When designed for constructive engagement, they can strengthen resilience.

A conflict-sensitive approach to digital governance is therefore essential. Peacebuilders must understand how platform incentives shape local narratives, how disinformation interacts with identity-based tensions, and how online harassment undermines women's civic participation. The 2025 OECD report on technology-facilitated gender-based violence documents the scale of the challenge and the ways online attacks spill into real-world threats. This is not peripheral; it is central to whether inclusive political settlements can be sustained.

The field must also help build alternatives. Public-interest platforms, civic-led digital spaces, and community-based deliberation tools demonstrate that democratic technology is possible. Taiwan's vTaiwan model and civic-driven participatory budgeting in Brazil show that when digital systems are designed for dialogue rather than extraction, they can deepen the democratic process.

A strategy adequate to this moment rests on three pillars. First, democratic governments must recognise that engagement-based ranking is a systemic risk to democratic stability and regulate it accordingly. Second, public-interest digital infrastructure must receive sustained investment to provide meaningful alternatives. Third, cross-movement organising—across parents, youth, civil society, women's networks, climate activists, and peacebuilders—is essential to building a constituency for reform.

Geese's warning stands: we no longer have the luxury of treating digital governance as a technical matter. It is now a foundational determinant of democratic health and a core condition for peace. The next decade will determine whether digital systems continue to fragment societies or become instruments of democratic renewal. For peacebuilders, whose work depends on dialogue, inclusion, and human dignity, the responsibility to help shape that future is clear.

Other articles by this author: 

The New Fragility: Peacebuilding Meets Digital Democracy (3-minute read)

Weaponisation of Law: Assault on Democracy (10-minute read)

A Vicious Spiral: Political Violence in Fragile Democracies (3-minute read)

Reluctant Truth-Tellers and Institutional Fragility (3-minute read)

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.