When a government forms, mature and developed governments necessarily then limit individual freedom and choices become more and more trade offs and compromises with near equal benefits to different factions. With near-equal trade offs, though, there are invariably very vocal factions on both sides of each choice. People argue that it is necessary for there to be transparency in the decision-making process to inform people who must accept the inevitable compromises. Political decisions invariably mean that there are two or more different precursor actions for the same outcome and so the factions must compromise.
However, transparency in a highly informed culture necessarily results in incremental coalescence from the chaos of many possible choices into increasingly polar factions for any choices condensing into a binary decision point. People naturally make decisions by incremental coalescence from the chaos of many possible outcomes into the order of a binary choice of action or inhibition. The initial chaos of many possible choices about an issue eventually condenses into a binary decision to incite or inhibit action.
The electronics of our information age allow people to participate in many more incremental compromises than in the past that are all part of each decision. As a result of these incremental choices, people tend to end up in one of two polar extremes associated with each decision.