It has become a reoccurring global ritual: a violent attack against a political figure. Followed by calls for change, condemnations from public figures, social media posts, and a vow that an attack will never happen again, with suggestions to fight political battles with words, not bullets.
And then it happens again.
Political polarisation is at an all time high, and public figures – especially those with strong ideological leanings – face constant media scrutiny, hostility online and sometimes in person. The murder of Charlie Kirk in Utah on September 10 has sent shockwaves through the American political landscape. Love him or loathe him, Kirk was one of the most visible voices on the political right, mobilising young conservatives across the nation. His killing is not just a personal tragedy – it is a moment that forces us to confront the state of modern politics and the rising spectre of political violence in modern democracy.
Who was Charlie Kirk?
Charles James Kirk was an American right-wing conservative activist, commentator, and author, born in Illinois and raised in the suburbs of Chicago. He became involved in politics as a high school student and dropped out of college to pursue political activism. Kirk was best known as the founder and president of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a non profit organisation focused on promoting conservative values on high school and college campuses. He hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a daily radio and podcast program with significant reach among conservative audiences.
Kirk had been a rising star within the Republican Party over the last ten years, growing his own online profile, and frequently using social media and public speaking to build a following. He had also written books and regularly appeared on conservative media outlets. Kirk was instrumental in expanding Turning Point USA into a power broker within the GOP. During the 2016 Republican convention, a speech he delivered in Cleveland launched him into a national audience. Then 22 years of age, Kirk delivered an energising speech with an applause line that the GOP was “the party of youth and diversity”, volunteering a to-the-point slogan irreverent for its time: “Big government sucks.”
Kirk had been a prominent supporter of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Kirk developed a strong rapport, especially with Donald Trump Jr., describing him as a “good friend” and pledging his support for his political ambitions. Kirk further spearheaded youth-focused campaigns like Students for Trump and played a pivotal role in funnelling support for Trump through TPUSA.
Kirk’s values were publicly criticised, with analysts, including Media Matters, arguing that his rhetoric and TPUSA efforts edged into far-right, Christian nationalist territory, amplifying extremist narratives. He was further accused of spreading misinformation and inflaming political polarisation, while supporters praised him for challenging the mainstream narrative and giving young conservatives a platform.
Kirk married his wife, former Miss Arizona Erika Frantzve in 2021. He has a daughter born in 2022 and a son born in 2024.
A Troubling Trend: Political Violence Rising Globally
Across the globe, political violence is no longer confined to unstable dictatorships or fragile democracies. It is increasingly emerging within established democratic states once considered immune to instability. From violent protest and assassination to targeted online harassment campaigns, the escalation of politically motivated aggression reflects a broader breakdown of trust in institutions, governance, and even in shared truth.
In democracies like the United States, Brazil, France, and Japan, polarised societies have witnessed violence erupting around elections, protests, and ideological disputes. This shift reveals that political violence is not just a reaction to weak governance, but also a product of deep societal fragmentation and the weaponisation of identity politics.
In recent years, the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in July 2022, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in July 2024, the murder of former Minnesota Democratic State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband in June 2025, and the murder of Charlie Kirk highlight that all political figures, regardless of positional leaning, face threats.
Since 2021 there have been over 300 cases of political violence in the U.S., marking the most significant increase since the 1970s. Various graphs and facts below further underscore the issues of political violence, and how the public interpret it.
Kirk’s murder underscores this rhetoric. It comes when political discourse is most toxic, and when partisan identities are more entrenched. The danger is that this incident could normalise retaliation or inspire copycats, escalating an already volatile environment.
These events raise a sobering question: what happens to public trust when political debate becomes a matter of life and death?
Polarisation and Rhetoric
We cannot ignore the role of rhetoric. Recent polling and academia make clear that rising polarisation in democracies is closely tied to changing attitudes about the legitimacy of violence in politics. In many countries, the failure to consistently condemn violence regardless of political affiliation has created double standards that erode moral clarity. When violent acts are excused or downplayed for partisan reasons, it signals that violence is an acceptable form of political participation.
According to a 2021 nationally representative survey of 1,899 U.S. residents, Republicans and Democrats who exhibit higher levels of polarisation – i.e., who “believe members of the opposing party are harmful to the nation’s well being or love America less” – are more likely to agree that it is sometimes necessary to use violence to achieve political goals.
A survey by States United Action leading up to the 2022 midterm elections found that 78 per cent of Americans see political violence as a problem, with over half calling it a major problem. But critically: large segments of the population also believe there are circumstances where violence could be acceptable if political systems are perceived as unfair, or under certain provocative conditions.
In recent years, political violence has re-emerged as a troubling feature of modern democracies. This rise is often tied to the erosion of democratic norms and the decline of trust in political institutions. Social media and partisan media amplify resentment and misinformation, creating environments where political opponents are increasingly viewed not as adversaries, but as existential threats. This fosters an “us versus them” mentality in which violence becomes seen as a legitimate or even necessary means of defending one’s identity or political values. Democracies, once thought resilient to such divisions, now face the paradox of having freedom of expression and participation exploited by actors who use them to incite hostility and undermine democratic stability.
The normalisation of political violence is inseparable from growing political polarisation. Polarisation hardens social boundaries and reduces space for compromise, with ideological camps retreating into echo chambers that reinforce grievances and delegitimise opposing perspectives. As discourse becomes more emotional and less factual, political rhetoric often slides toward moral absolutism — portraying conflicts as battles of good versus evil. This moralisation not only lowers the threshold for aggression but also provides justification for violent acts in the name of justice, patriotism, or self-defence. Polarisation thus transforms political competition into a zero-sum struggle, eroding the mutual respect necessary for peaceful coexistence and turning democracy’s diversity of opinion into a breeding ground for hostility and radicalisation.
The murder of Charlie Kirk might be the clearest sign yet that words are no longer just words – they are catalysts for action. This global trend represents one of the most significant threats to democratic resilience today: a world where fear, intimidation, and anger replace dialogue, tolerance, and reason — the very principles upon which democracy depends.
Media Coverage and Double Standards
The media’s response to political violence varies less in value of coverage than in framing and narrative emphasis – and Kirk’s murder highlights this divide. Some major outlets have provided extensive coverage, framing the event as a political assassination and sparking debate about the current state of U.S. politics. Others have been criticised for downplaying the potential political motivation behind the attack or for focusing more on Kirk’s controversial activism than on the implications of his death for democratic stability, softening the focus on ideological violence.
Critics argue this reflects a long-standing double standard: when left-wing figures such as Gretchen Whitmer (current governor of Michigan) or Paul Pelosi (husband of former House speaker Nancy Pelosi) are attacked or threatened, the press is quick to frame the violence as a symptom of rising extremism and political polarisation. In Pelosi’s case, coverage was prolonged, framed as an unambiguous act of political extremism, and accompanied by calls to address radicalisation. Attacks on conservative figures, however, receive more cautious treatment. Reporting on Kirk’s death frequently folded the event into broader conversations about “polarisation” or the “culture war”. This fuels a sense on the political right that their lives and views are treated as less valuable by major media outlets.
Others push back against this narrative. They suggest that the coverage of Kirk’s death is consistent with how the media treats high-profile killings. Kirk’s prominence, the public nature of the event, and the existence of a graphic video made coverage inevitable and intense. Mainstream outlets immediately following Kirk’s death largely avoided premature speculation about motive – a practice aligning with journalism, not ideological bias. Historical precedent highlights that when left-wing extremists have committed attacks – such as the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting – their political affiliations were reported. It should be noted that the accused killer of Charlie Kirk – Tyler Robinson – has been described by his mother as “leaning more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights-oriented”, growing apart from his family’s conservative values.
This debate over double standards in media coverage highlights a deeper issue: the widening trust gap between the consumers and the press. Conservatives feel unheard and unprotected, while progressives view Kirk’s murder as tragic but part of a feedback loop of extremism. Whether or not Kirk was treated fairly by the press, the polarised reaction to his killing reveals how every act of political violence is now made through competing narratives about bias, legitimacy, and who is truly under threat, complicating efforts to build a bipartisan consensus against political violence.
Free Speech and Democracy
Kirk’s work – regardless of whether one agreed with his views or not – was rooted in the idea of public debate and persuasion. If political violence becomes a tool for silencing voices, it will have a chilling effect on free speech.
Free speech lies at the heart of democracy — it is the foundation upon which open debate, accountability, and civic participation rest. In the Western world, the right to express one’s opinion without fear of persecution is often seen as a defining feature of liberal democracy, distinguishing it from authoritarian systems that silence dissent. When citizens and politicians can speak freely — whether through peaceful rallies, protests, journalism, or social media — they contribute to the marketplace of ideas that enables societies to evolve and self-correct. This freedom ensures that no single narrative or ideology can dominate unchecked, and that power remains answerable to the people.
However, when individuals begin to feel that free expression is conditional — tolerated only when it aligns with prevailing political or cultural norms — democracy weakens or breaks down. The perception that certain viewpoints are punished, censored, or vilified, while others are protected, creates a chilling effect on public discourse. Activists, commentators, and ordinary citizens may self-censor out of fear of social backlash, professional consequences, or political marginalisation.
Over time, this stifles diversity of thought and narrows the scope of legitimate debate, leading to a democracy where people are reluctant to engage. Democracies operate well under not only the legal right to free speech, but on the cultural and institutional commitment to protect it equally — even, and especially, for voices that are controversial, unpopular, or uncomfortable.
This is not just an attack on one man – it is an attack on the principle that ideas should be contested with arguments, not bullets, and thus creating a further climate of fear.
Implications for the Future
The shooting of the Turning Point USA co-founder is a symptom of the deeper erosion in the democratic fabric of Western societies. Democracies, once immune to politically motivated killings, are discovering that increasing polarisation, disinformation, and ideological tribalism has created an environment where violence is not only possible, but increasingly predictable.
If such incidents are met with selective outrage or partisan justification, political violence risks becoming normalised. Future activists and politicians may think twice before participating in politics, given the constant scrutiny and hostility, undermining the open contestation of ideas in democracy.
The Kirk case also underscores how online radicalisation, and echo chambers, have made it easier to frame opponents as existential threats. If unaddressed, violence could spread not only through political rallies or protests, but also through digitally coordinated campaigns targeting individuals. Regulating social media platforms — while protecting free speech — will be a defining democratic challenge.
Politicians, media outlets and citizens must consider the type of society they wish to live in. Democracies thrive when we engage in vigorous debate while safeguarding the rights of others to express their views.
Will this death prompt a serious discussion on de-escalation and mutual respect? Or will it deepen the cycle of retribution further destabilising the country? The outcome will define the next chapter of American politics.
Featured image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr
