“One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don’t go into government.”
Donald J. Trump
Feelings of distrust, cynicism, and discontent are commonly expressed in politics and government. But public trust in public institutions and actors is important. As a 2013 OECD report explains, weakening public trust is associated with higher rates of noncompliance with rules, greater risk aversion, and a decline in innovation, none of which is good news for economic growth or wellness more generally.[1] Events such as economic crises and political scandals can cause levels of public trust to drop; even an isolated incident, involving only certain people and sectors directly, can shake public trust across institutions and actors for a period of time.
“Public trust” can mean different things, depending on who, when, and how you ask. Some surveys and polls generate data on levels of trust in a particular institution, person, or thing, while others are looking to tap into attitudes about trust more broadly. Perhaps the most useful methodologies are the ones that track levels of trust over time. Longitudinal studies help to put attitudes into perspective as either transitory states of mind or more enduring trends in public opinion. They also help to establish patterns of correlation between public trust and other phenomena, such as major historical events, economic growth and/or stagnation, and fluctuations in formal education, civic literacy, and income levels. The economic crisis of 2008, for example, had a devastating effect on public trust in both political and economic institutions. According to Adam Tooze, author of Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World, the global crash and the collapse of public trust that followed paved the way for the conspiracy theories, populism, and polarization that are too present in politics today.
Even as the global pandemic has defined political, economic, and social discourses in 2020, stories involving political ethics (or lack thereof) have made headlines, all the same, some of them with serious consequences for public trust. Elections in the United States saw Democrat candidate Joe Biden win the Electoral College over incumbent President Donald Trump, who is attributing this outcome to fraudulent votes and illegal vote counting. President Trump’s allegations have no basis in fact or evidence but instead are couched in a refusal to accept the rules of engagement in American electoral democracy. In his loss, he seems determined to tear the whole system down with him. He seeks to leverage pre-existing distrust, cynicism, and despair to gather support for his cause and to undermine the legitimacy of President-elect Biden’s mandate.
In Canada, the WE controversy dominated the news circuit for much of the summer. Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former Minister of Finance Minister Bill Morneau are being investigated by Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion for failing to recuse themselves from the decision to have the WE Charity run the Canada Student Service Grant program. Though the investigations are ongoing, Morneau resigned as Minister and Member of Parliament in August of 2020, stating a desire to become the next Secretary-General for the OECD. More recently, we have heard two different stories of Members of Parliament using public funds to hire family members to work in their constituency offices. The rules do not strictly prohibit hiring in-laws and, at one time, did not prohibit hiring siblings, so it is possible that there were no technical violations of either the House rules or the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons. But this is cold comfort to anyone who decries nepotism in government and expects public office holders to uphold the highest ethical standards.
All public office holders, whether elected, appointed, or hired on merit, are custodians of the public trust. This is a serious responsibility, the neglect or abuse of which will have consequences. While world events that cause damage to public trust often cannot be controlled, individuals can make choices about their own behaviour that build public confidence rather than undermine it.
[1] OECD. 2013. “Trust in government, policy effectiveness and the governance agenda.” Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/gov_glance-2013-6-en.pdf?expires=1605720908&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=32D3DF82249B783362E77490B9726514
