The modern world seems to be hugely divided, with the polarization driven by partisan politics but often extending into seemingly every aspect of society.  Research from the University of Queensland suggests that unorthodox leaders who try and shake up the political system tend to be elected in countries where society is morally divided.

The researchers believe that people are more inclined to vote outside of their normal political orientation if they feel that there is a strong need to restore a kind of moral order to society.

“Our research is the first that provides evidence of the causal links between moral division and the desire to elect extreme leaders as a potential solution,” they say.

Moral breakdown

The researchers found that if we believe there has been a breakdown in the fundamental fabric of society then we’re more likely to want an authoritarian type leader to try and fix things and restore order.

“On the other hand, if there is a feeling of lack of leadership in society, voters may be drawn to a progressive leader to unify and lead the country in a new direction, such as Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex,” the researchers explain.

The findings emerged after the researchers examined the core values of voters on both the right and the left in the US, UK, and Australia.  The study was born out of the perception that people on opposite ends of the political spectrum can often seem to have incompatible moral values.

This can create an unhelpful sense that society is constantly waging a battle between good and evil and the only way forward is for your side to prevail over the opposition.

Common ground

“We actually agree on more than we realize and it’s the perception that our society is divided that presents more of a threat than the actual divisions that do exist,” the researchers say.

This perception that society is morally divided, and often increasingly so, that is often what is threatening social cohesion and political stability more than an actual divide between people.

“We need to be particularly wary of people who play into these narratives for their own gain—whether that be politicians, media commentators, or interest groups,” the authors conclude