Trust, along with choice, will surely go down as one of the buzz words of the early 21st century. Rarely does a day go by without some mention of trust in the media, usually in a story about how government or some other institution is facing a particular ‘crisis of trust’. Moreover, a decline in trust is cited as one of the major causes of political disengagement. Originally the subject of meaningful debate, trust has become a mantra chanted by politicians and the media alike who, while bemoaning its demise, feel little need to take concrete, practical steps to address the real reasons why people feel disengaged. If it does exist, the crisis can only be solved by offering people genuine opportunities to have a say and get involved in our democratic system.
Ostensibly there does appear to be a problem relating to public trust in political representatives and institutions. Research for the Hansard Society by MORI suggests that a mere 23 per cent of us trust government, and even fewer trust parliament to tell the truth.
Nor is a deficit of trust restricted to the field of politics. Society in general, we are told, has become less trusting. A World Values Survey shows that just over 30 per cent of us believe other people can be trusted, down from just over half of us in 1959. Interestingly, despite this apparent climate of distrust, doctors seem to be faring quite well, with almost 90 per cent of us, according to another survey by MORI, believing that our local GP can be trusted – up by almost 10 percentage points from 1983. Conversely, confidence in the NHS has declined over the same period, supporting the notion that people are generally more trusting of the local and personal and more suspicious of the remote or impersonal.
The same MORI survey found that while support for parliament and government is considerably lower than for doctors, with trust levels of approximately 22 and 23 per cent each, these institutions are more trusted than they were 20 years ago. Once you begin digging beneath the surface, the issue of trust becomes murkier and more complex.
For example, one could use these findings to argue that the media hype surrounding a ‘crisis of trust’ is entirely misplaced. Alternatively, one could cite other statistics that prove otherwise. Indeed, some surveys indicate a sharp decline in public trust of politicians, ranking them below journalists to rival estate agents as one of the least trusted professions.
However, the contradictory messages coming from the huge array of statistics on trust may indicate that putting it at the heart of the political engagement debate is ill-judged.
Consider this interesting anomaly: while only 39 per cent of young people aged between 18 and 24 voted at the last election (compared with over 59 per cent of the entire electorate), recent studies by the Home Office and other institutions reveal that the same age group is the most ‘trusting’ of politicians and political institutions.
It could be argued that this gap between young people’s voting behaviour and their degree of political trust results from their general lack of interest in politics. However, this does not correspond with our own experiences at the Hansard Society, which suggest that, while young people do not in general feel connected with formal political institutions, they are highly interested in political issues and debates – and are eager to engage when offered meaningful opportunities to do so. The Hansard Society’s Headsup website has hosted numerous online debates for young people on issues ranging from the appointment of a children’s commissioner to the issue of asylum. The very enthusiastic response this site has attracted indicates that young people have a healthy appetite for politics and political issues, particularly when they are offered a chance to have a say.
A ‘crisis of trust’, therefore, fails to capture the complexity of what is at work when people do not vote or engage with formal political institutions. Our research suggests that the main reason why people fail to engage with formal politics is not so much rooted in an absence of trust as in a strong sense that their voice will not be heard – and that participating in politics is pointless.
There are other reasons to be wary of focusing on trust. When discussing the problem of political disengagement from politics, a couple of issues need to borne in mind.
Firstly, trust is an abstract concept, and can mean very different things to different people. When the term is used in opinion surveys, much depends on how trust-related questions are posed. For example, one may trust the government to be honest while at the same time not trusting it in respect of other issues. A recent report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life noted how public concern about politicians has shifted from sleaze in the 1990s to the issue of spin in current times, suggesting once again that trust can assume a wide range of meanings.
Secondly, the term takes on an added edge in the context of political debate. When deciding whether to place trust in your local GP, you may, if you are particularly rigorous, consider the experiences of others around you and, using relatively objective criteria, decide whether a particular GP is up to the mark. In the political realm, however, your decision to trust a politician is likely to be influenced by your political allegiances and whether you believe their party represents your views. The same could be said for the media. Likening trust in doctors to that placed in the media or in politicians appears to verge on an instance of apples and oranges.
Even if one factors in these problems, however, trust remains a problematic concept. A trusting public isn’t necessarily a sign of a healthy democracy, as trust can be misplaced. While measures to introduce more transparency and accountability in to our political system may decrease the likelihood of misplaced trust, they have also undermined the somewhat unquestioning trust – or should it be faith – that once prevailed. Members of the public are becoming more assertive and demanding, and now need to be offered reasons to trust, rather than reasons not to. The age of deference is long gone.
Perhaps this helps explain why trust is now finding such a privileged place in the political lexicon. However, ultimately, a ‘crisis of trust’ is another way of describing the fact that a large, and possibly growing, number of people feel disconnected from the political process – a problem that will not be solved merely by constant invocations of trust. People must be provided with genuine opportunities to make their voice heard on issues that matter to them in a way that offers them the chance to materially influence the decision making process. As someone famous once said, ‘A little less conversation, a little more action please.’