How do you get better government?

If the political elite wonder how to 'rebuild trust', their first place to look is in the mirror.

Embedded audio, if you prefer to listen

There’s a widespread sense that “the deal” between governments and their people has been broken.

What was that deal, then? It worked more or less like this: “If people work hard and play by the rules, they’re able to get ahead and create a secure life for themselves and their families. They’re confident that public services are there for them when needed – equitably and competently delivered. They can see that governments are doing their best to anticipate and respond to crises, locally and globally. And those who make the rules play by the rules, just as the great majority of ordinary people do.”

Those were some of the qualities of public life that sustained an underlying political trust. And you could modify or add to that list. But one survey after another tells us that, in most of “the free world”, people feel that this deal’s been broken, and they feel a loss of control over their future. Trust in government and in political parties has declined to low levels. This is especially noticeable in the US where surveys on trust in government date back to the late 1950s.

A “wave of popular distrust” has swept liberal democracies, according to a recent meeting of prominent academics in Berlin. Consequently, they say “we need to” make some significant changes in public policy and in how the economy works.

There are two problems with this kind of well-meaning statement.

First, it assumes that someone knows who “we” are. What group of people is included or engaged in this change-making “we”?

I guess “we” would probably hope that majorities of people support any radical changes that “we” would propose. But will people who are powerless and oppressed be included? Or will others do the talking on their behalf as the world order gets rearranged? And will those who feel left out be any less distrusting?

Secondly, a significant set of actors or agencies included in this amorphous “we” must be that beast we call “government”. The planning and implementation of changes in social and environmental policies and economic models that many people ask for must be the responsibilities of governments.

But “government” is itself a policy problem, especially if we think of it as a vast and complex set of decisions, actions and services – as well as people, some elected and some appointed. “How to govern?” is an ancient question that wiser minds than mine have thought about for centuries – and yet, we seem to be further than ever from finding the answers!

Furthermore, a degree of distrust in government and in political leaders is rational. We shouldn’t trust anyone with unlimited power – hence democratic constitutions separate and limit powers. We want trustworthy leaders and civil servants, but a bit of distrust is always sensible.

Here’s the basic problem: how much confidence can people have in systems of government to make themselves trustworthy when people don’t trust them to start with?

It’s a bootstraps problem. How does “the system” fix itself?

One way to help resolve this, according to many people surveyed around the globe, would be to get better leaders. As I wrote elsewhere recently, “If the political elite wonder how to ‘rebuild trust’, their first place to look is in the mirror.” This is a prescription with an ancient lineage. It used to be called “the mirror of princes”. We’re still facing this centuries-old problem of trustworthy leadership because it’s a matter that individuals must address reflectively as a question of personal ethics. And it applies to followers as well as leaders. So, before we start blaming – or idolising – any politician, let’s take a look in the mirror.

For more on this and other matters related to good government, see my recent book Government and Political Trust. (The paperback is presently discounted at NZ$44.99. I can give away a free copy or two, in person only in Freemans Bay, no mail-outs.)

Achieving change for the better isn’t easy, but enough is known nowadays to get better government and public administration, and hence to deal more effectively with outstanding global and local problems.

Some reader feedback

In my recent post on the Budget, I polled readers on how the tax relief package will affect them. 57% said it makes no difference and 25% said it helps a little. This surprised me at first, but it’s not far out of line with a snap Curia poll of 500 people (reported in the Weekend Herald) in which 48% rated the Budget as just “okay”. Admittedly Curia asked a different question. But should we expect that many people would be either thrilled or disgusted with any government’s annual budget? How much information about it do most people absorb anyway?

My academic colleague Julienne Molyneux commented about the Budget’s “broken promise on cancer drugs”. The government is now trying to claw that one back, as if the funding was only deferred. But that kind of flip-flopping diminishes people’s political trust.

My little reader polls don’t get samples that are representative of any larger social groups. Responses may get primed by what I’ve written, moreover. (Should I put the poll first, and ask you to complete it before reading?) But it was impressive that 82% agreed that there should be a cap on total donations to candidates and parties. It’s a question worth putting to a representative sample, if any professional pollsters out there are reading this.

It was a coincidence – if not uncanny – that 10% supported Trump in the poll on preferences for president of the US. That was the same number of Kiwi Trump supporters I’d estimated back in 2020. Meanwhile, 67% of readers who did my poll opted for Biden. I guess I have a left-leaning readership, but right-wing voices in the comments section are welcome. Hopefully, a pollster will do a scientific survey on New Zealanders’ preferences for America’s presidential election at some stage this year. They should include all of the candidates, which I failed to do, as was rightly pointed out by Joshua Huffman. To make up for that, I recommend checking out Jill Stein, Cornel West and Chase Oliver. There will be others too. These candidates could do relatively well this time around, given many people’s mixed feelings about Biden and Trump.

There’ve been some lively debates, especially on the Treaty principles, and comments have been robust and yet respectful.

Portrait of the philosopher John Locke – who is not the first, but is probably the most influential (in English and American traditions), early-modern social-contract theorist who talks about government by consent and describes political power in terms of trust.