Social media influence and political polarization in the digital age

The role of social media in the recent election

As Bangladesh once again approached a national election, political communication had moved far beyond rallies, posters, and television talk shows. A significant share of political debate now unfolded online, where social media influencers such as YouTubers, Facebook Live hosts, and short-video creators emerged as powerful actors. Although they are not professional journalists, many citizens place deep trust in their commentary, granting these voices substantial influence over public opinion during election periods.

Many influencers play a constructive role by sharing accurate information, correcting misinformation, and engaging younger audiences in political discussion. Problems arise, however, when some move away from informing the public and begin framing politics as a moral battlefield. When political narratives are reduced to binaries such as “us versus them,” “good versus evil,” or “patriots versus traitors,” democratic debate loses its grounding in reason and evidence. Fear, suspicion, and hostility take over, crowding out nuance and critical thinking.

During elections, the most effective mechanism for deepening division is the repeated use of “us versus them” narratives. A segment of influencers presents national challenges as the result of a single enemy and portrays their own political position as the only legitimate form of patriotism. This framing produces two harmful consequences. Dissent and critical questioning are treated as acts of betrayal, and ordinary voters become hesitant to ask questions, fearing that curiosity itself may place them on the wrong side of the political divide.

Academic research helps explain why this form of influence is so powerful. In 2017, disinformation scholars Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan introduced the concept of “information disorder,” showing how misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation collectively pollute the digital environment. During elections, the problem often does not involve outright falsehoods. Instead, partial truths are exaggerated or stripped of context to provoke anger and fear. As emotions intensify, people gravitate toward narratives that confirm their existing beliefs rather than verifying facts.

A related concept is “truth decay,” developed by RAND Corporation scholars Jennifer Kavanagh and Michael D. Rich. Truth decay describes a gradual erosion in the role of verifiable facts in public debate, accompanied by the growing dominance of opinions, emotions, and personal biases. When societies lose a shared factual foundation, democratic dialogue weakens, and political polarization accelerates.

International experiences illustrate how digital influence can reshape electoral politics. After the 2016 US presidential election, the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook scandal revealed how personal data and targeted political messaging could be used to manipulate voter behaviour. Investigations later showed that data from tens of millions of Facebook users had been harvested without consent, contributing to an emerging “influence industry” that amplified polarization and accelerated truth decay.

India’s electoral experience offers another cautionary example. As the world’s largest democracy, India has struggled with the spread of online misinformation during elections. Reports from 2024 highlight how authorities attempted to curb digital falsehoods after recognizing that online disinformation could escalate into real-world violence and social unrest. Influencers who claimed to present “ground realities” often normalized divisive language, shaping not only voting behaviour but also post-election social relations.

Ultimately, the impact of influencers in Bangladesh’s election depended not only on regulation and platform policies, but also on responsibility, both from those who create political content and from those who consume it.

Taiwan’s 2024 election, however, demonstrates that a different outcome is possible. Despite widespread attempts to spread false information, the impact was limited through rapid fact-checking, transparent communication by election authorities, and the responsible conduct of some influencers. This case shows that influencers are not inherently destabilizing actors; under the right conditions, they can help defend factual discourse rather than undermine it.

Brazil’s 2018 election highlights yet another dimension of digital influence. Research on the Brazilian context shows how encrypted messaging platforms such as WhatsApp enabled political messages to spread rapidly and privately. In these closed networks, trusted individuals and group administrators became informal influencers, forwarding unverified content that quietly but extensively deepened political division.

In Bangladesh, influencer-driven polarization during elections posed particular dangers. Political debate frequently shifted away from policy and governance toward personality-based and identity-driven narratives. When influencers packaged identity politics in emotionally charged and simplified language, social divisions spread rapidly, leaving little room for rational discussion. Rumours and half-truths circulated quickly because many users lacked both the habit and the tools to verify sources, and statements such as “I saw a video” or “someone said it” are often treated as sufficient evidence.

Another risk arises when influencers replicate foreign political slogans and narratives without considering local realities. Phrases such as “Stop the Steal,” originally popularized in the USA, have appeared in other national contexts. In Bangladesh, such language is especially harmful because it undermines trust in elections even before voting begins, weakening democratic legitimacy regardless of the outcome.

Online polarization also produces offline consequences. When influencers use suggestive language that implies punishment, boycotts, or retaliation, they increase fear and insecurity among individuals and communities. In some cases, this rhetoric spills over into harassment, intimidation, or violence, transforming digital hostility into real-world harm.

These dynamics are closely linked to human security. The United Nations Development Programme’s 1994 Human Development Report emphasized that security is not only about protecting the state but also about safeguarding people’s daily lives. Divisive political messaging fuels anxiety, damages family and community relationships, and exposes individuals to online abuse and threats. From this perspective, the impact of divisive influencers is not merely a political issue but a broader human security concern.

An often-overlooked aspect of this influence is the role of expatriate Bangladeshis. Large audiences for online political content live outside the country yet remain deeply engaged through YouTube discussions, Facebook Live programs, and online commentary. Influencer narratives, therefore, shape not only domestic opinion but also the perceptions of the diaspora. This has economic implications, as Bangladesh depends heavily on remittances that support millions of families and contribute significantly to foreign currency reserves. Persistent political polarization within expatriate communities risks creating tensions that, over time, could affect remittance flows and national economic stability.

Economic insecurity, in turn, affects both national and human security. Political polarization can also endanger the social cohesion, working conditions, and personal safety of migrant workers abroad, extending the consequences of online discourse far beyond the digital sphere.

There is little doubt that social media influencers will play a decisive role in Bangladesh’s upcoming election. The central question is whether their influence will deepen social fragmentation or help citizens make informed and evidence-based decisions. Experiences from the United States, India, Brazil, and Taiwan all point to a shared reality: digital influence is powerful. When left unchecked, it can erode trust, weaken democracy, and threaten national, human, and personal security. When exercised responsibly, however, the same influence can promote informed debate, counter misinformation, and strengthen democratic participation.

Ultimately, the impact of influencers in Bangladesh’s election depended not only on regulation and platform policies, but also on responsibility, both from those who create political content and from those who consume it.