<p>Public discourse about polarisation has become one of the latest hypes in politics, whether it is in the political sphere proper, the media, or academia. Much like the populist hype and anti-populist discourse that preceded it, this phenomenon has prompted some interesting and useful developments in understanding our reactionary context. However, it also risks obscuring certain trends by mislabelling them as polarisation. One consequence has been found in demands for a return to post-political technocratic management with a focus on ‘concrete issues’ and public policies. This, it is argued, will move the focus away from divisive and irrational demands by the ‘extremes’ and restore order. This article contends that this ‘polarisation narrative’ simplifies complex issues through a bad analogy: the construction of a spectrum where good should be found in the middle of diametrically opposed political positions. To address this, we develop a critique of this narrative and highlight its limitations by examining democracy, political parties, and political participation in the public sphere. Subsequently, in response to the diagnoses and proposals of the polarisation narrative, this article explores potential alternatives that offer new pathways for democratic expansion.</p>