Public trust and democracy

By Mamtimin Ala - posted Tuesday, 6 August 2024

The West is currently at a critical historical juncture, facing a set of pressing challenges. While some of these challenges can be managed within the domestic sphere, others surpass the capacity of the traditional political system to resolve them effectively.

A 2024 survey by the OECD on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions reveals that democratic governments grapple with various global challenges, including environmental and digital transitions, polarisation, geopolitical tensions, and the social consequences of economic developments. Building and maintaining trust in public institutions has become a top priority for governments worldwide.

The Scanlon Report 2023, a comprehensive study conducted in an Australian context, confirms this result. It highlights the decline of public trust in the federal government and rising concerns about inequality, diminishing a sense of national pride and belonging.

Political institutions and politicians are now confronted with the growing urgency to address the tension between stakeholders-mainly between public interests and the interests of transnational corporations. Considering the traditional notion of the social contract, the relationship between a state and the people is now under significant strain.

There are three emerging critical challenges for this relationship.

Firstly, theoretically, a binary or multiparty political system promises progressive improvement in the quality of people's lives. Suppose political parties, whether in power or opposition, fail to deliver their crucial election commitments constantly over a long period of time. In that case, some may question the integrity of the political party system and the efficiency of elections, concluding that democracy enables an illusion of choice. For example, the current debate between two parties, the Liberal and Labor parties in Australia, on deteriorating housing affordability has long been a band aid approach with no substantial change, while more people are struggling to avoid homelessness, let alone buying or maintaining a house. The strategy is not aligned with the planned and projected influx of migrants, refugees, and students, long-term housing strategies, and the pressure on public services, infrastructure, and social cohesion. It feels like pouring water into a bucket with holes in the bottom while expecting it to get full eventually.

Secondly, politicians remain expected to resolve issues with global orientations, such as inflation, living costs, energy security, climate change, migration management, and technological transformations (the rise of AI), with domestic, indeed traditional, solutions. As these issues are beyond their reach, they often end up being seen as hopeless and helpless, leading to public frustration and anger.

It must be realised that these challenges are profoundly shaped by a much bigger global context and resolved by international, or better transnational, cooperation, resources, and policies. However, almost all these resources are, to a certain extent, falling under the spell of exceptionally few global corporations, threatening to reduce the capabilities of states to resolve them independently and effectively.

Thirdly, the rise of transnational corporations, which operate in multiple countries and wield significant global influence and control, is rapidly and perhaps irreversibly shaping individual states' economic, social, and political realities, often to the detriment of democratic governance.

Whether this is true or an exaggeration, it raises many questions: Will a mature democracy like the US accept such a politically non-elected transnational corporation to function alongside other branches of the government as elected entities? Suppose the assets of BlackRock grow ad infinitum, and the debts of the US Federal Government grow exponentially in opposition to reach $35 trillion now from $34.4 trillion as of February 2024. Will BlackRock eventually be allowed to bail out the US Federal Government if it goes bankrupt? If so, will it be reasonable for BlackRock or a coalition of other titan corporations, such as Vanguard and State Street, to seize control of the US Federal Government and rule over the country and its people, leveraging their time-tested management experience, robust global networks, effective control mechanisms, and financial might?

These are not just hypothetical scenarios, but potential realities. Corporations are gradually outperforming individual states with their steady growth, omnipresent global networks, ever-increasing investments, and promising improvements as capitalism allows for, in contrast to individual democratic states beleaguered under debts, financial mismanagement, inherent shortsightedness caused by election cycles, a lack of transformative political leadership, social polarisation, migration mismanagement, an increase in permanent unemployment, worsening homelessness, and mounting difficulties in leading digital and environmental transformations. The potential consequences of all these are dire, with the diminishing capacity of many Western nations to cope with them successfully, potentially resulting in a breakdown of democratic governance, the rise of authoritarian, technocratic, or corporate regimes, and the erosion of individual rights and freedoms-a scenario we must strive to prevent.

When people realise their lives are worsening, politicians become the first target to be blamed as sell-outs for vested, corrupt, or global interest groups, losing public trust. This public mistrust can quickly turn into public frustration, anger, and hopelessness, legitimising extremism and violence.

Given the situation's gravity, the question arises: Will there be any solution to all this?

Yes or no. Yes, democracy is not a cause but an effect of the current challenges in the West. It feels like the rule of a game-the rule is time-tested, fair, and functional, but the gamers fail gradually to abide by it, leaving the audience uninterested in watching and taking part in such a shoddy and distasteful game. Then, the game will be over.

However, it's important to remember that democracy is a resilient system that has weathered many storms in the past. With the right reforms and a renewed commitment to democratic values, it can continue to serve as a bulwark against the rise of anarchy and authoritarianism, ensuring the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

However, there are many loopholes in a democracy. The most significant is that unelected forces and unchecked players coordinate to sabotage a democracy to serve a few invisible but omnipotent and omnipresent interests. The other one is the growing and unlimited inequality in wealth distribution. If the former intensifies public mistrust, the latter causes public outrage and hate. Tightening up and closing many loopholes is needed more than ever and requires a significant overhaul operation. It is like repairing a faulty aeroplane while flying in it.

No, the current danger in democracy is too entrenched. Public trust in the integrity of political institutions and politicians is steadily diminishing. Impunity gradually gets the upper hand in undermining the integrity of legal institutions, which is one of the crucial pillars for exercising democratic rights, duties, and principles. For example, the way that the investigation into the attempted assassination of former President Trump has gone nowhere so far explains sufficiently that a democratic legal system in the US is no longer robust and reliable. It also throws the integrity of the upcoming US elections into question.

Now, the people in the West are offered two options: either the current system of democracy must be replaced with a better one, or the dying democracy must be accepted. Indeed, the first option is highly impractical, while the second is severely consequential. Perhaps the only hope lies in the people's political will and understanding that nobody saves them, save themselves. They must work from within the democracy to force game players to follow the rules while making them tighter to reflect the proven principles of democracy, consent of the governed, fairness and justice