Trust in Crisis

In 1999 I was invited to contribute to a scholarly Australian anthology on the topic of public sector reform. In Requiem for the Nation State [1] – a presciently named chapter as it happens - I anticipated the need for alternative ways to manage human affairs, especially given rapid technological convergence and hyper-connectivity, the evolution of global markets, and new social constructs.

As social values morphed, and digital technologies enabled us to connect with almost anyone, at any time, for any reason, a profoundly distinctive society was emerging. In the early phase of this transition corporate power, including that of the press would dwindle, while many of our most revered public institutions would need to reinvent their role in order to remain relevant. At a minimum, I concluded, they would need to be more accessible, inclusive, empathic and transparent – prepared to nurture cooperative partnerships across boundaries that were porous, and doing it on a scale that was unprecedented. This would not be an easy task. Openness, responsiveness and empathy were uncommon qualities in public sector organisations at the time. They remain so today.

Corporations have already begun to show signs of fatigue - toiling to adapt to an impending post-capitalist global environment. But most public enterprises, including international NGOs, have done nothing remotely resembling what was (and still is) needed for them to avoid becoming a dysfunctional burden on society. In fact I would go so far as to suggest the reverse has happened in terms of governments. Central agencies remain embedded in an old paradigm and rely on a variety of defensive tactics and mechanisms to shield themselves against trends they fear and do not fully comprehend. But most governments are stuck in a state of denial and old-fashioned adversarial combat.

Often on the back of specious pretexts - such as safeguarding national borders with a zeal many deem excessive in an age of mass migration, or securing civil society from the threat of domestic terrorism - actually a trivial statistical risk when compared, for example, with the likelihood of being struck by lightning - and by resorting to intrusive policing and surveillance protocols, successive governments of almost every political persuasion now routinely seek to cajole and intimidate, attempting to snuff out the slightest hint of public disapproval, yet also provoking intolerance in almost every scripted utterance.

In so doing they have distanced themselves from the community they are there to serve. Furthermore the growing attitude that citizens may not have sufficient knowledge, nor the inclination, to engage with the political process, assumes a governing elite uniquely equipped with the capacity to do their job; who can, as a consequence, demand our unquestioning allegiance for between three to five years at a time; and that their judgement to make wise policy decisions on our behalf can be trusted. Except that we no longer believe that to be the case.

Such a scenario is an outrageous distortion of what is intended by advocates of democracy. It legitimises the suggestion that a career in politics is a good thing, that elected officials should be able to benefit from the perks of office over the span of their career, and that the community should be both compliant and silent in these matters. This bizarre twist to democratic principles has become the defining credo of orthodox political parties. For advocates of democracy as a liberating and unifying force the trend is both alarming and ominous.

A recent report, released by one of Australia’s largest professional services firms, seriously suggested that democracy would be more robust if citizens would simply mind their own business - letting politicians get on with the job of governing without the constant disparagement hurled their way via the media, social outlets and public activism.

Such an astonishing distortion of the concept of demos - designed to ensure business interests and economic management, rather than ordinary citizens and issues of social welfare and justice, continue to dominate parliamentary debate - is too serious a matter to sweep under the carpet. Yet no voice was raised in protest. No media outlet took issue with such an hypothesis. I cannot help but wonder whether this is symbolic of an overly acquiescent, even mischievous, fifth estate; a surfeit of other distractions to which we routinely succumb, or the extent to which society has become sedated by constant ennui of the present aimed at discouraging any meaningful civic engagement and emasculating any hope for a different future.

At the time of writing Requiem for the Nation State I remember feeling that trust - that most cherished and fundamental precept in the human behavioural code - was also the most endangered. Trust among and between individuals at a generic level naturally - but also more implicitly as trust by the community in those on whom we confer the authority of public office to use their power to govern fairly, with no thought of personal gain, and with sufficient awareness of both issues and context to be able to make policy decisions that benefit the majority of citizens.

I also recall saying, almost as a humourous aside, that anyone actively seeking public office should be barred automatically on the basis of an inflated sense of self-worth. Given the increasingly common appropriation of governments by family dynasties, as well as those who assume without conscience that politics entitles them to the career of a life-time – quite literally - I now believe such a measure should be a central element of any modern democratic system. We should simply hasten to end practices that lead to injustice, corruption or bias.

Today all my earlier conclusions are being vindicated. Around the world trust in government is being eroded and the veracity of the political process tarnished. The media has a tendency to shine the spotlight on politicians as they skate on the surface of the system. But people are easy targets. In the cut and thrust of daily political life the mass media’s reckless craving for public stoushes, which they feed by recasting differences of opinion as infotainment, is easily satisfied. But it is the governance system as a whole - its inability to deal with the sheer complexity of today’s world - to which we should really be turning our attention.

Confidence in the political process, and in the capacity of elected representatives to address dynamically complex policy issues intelligently within this system, is collapsing before our eyes. There seem to be two key reasons for this:

• The idea that one person can represent the views of a constituency no longer works - although we still pretend there is no alternative. The principle of an elected official representing a group of people was never perfect. But while it may have been a practical solution in the days of horse and carriage, when the largest boroughs comprised barely a few thousand individuals, it is nonsense in a digital world where hundreds of thousands of people live in some electorates. The sense that it is impossible for any local member to adequately represent the sophistication of my views invariably leads to frustration and disappointment. It needs reconsidering.

• Within the context of representative democracy - especially given that each policy issue contains the most subtle of nuances that need thorough examination if systemic consequences are to be fully appreciated and taken into account - ideological constraints are a crass way of depicting the beliefs of any one group. The antiquated adoption of opposing philosophies, in which the views of a group are categorised as left or right of centre, has become virtually meaningless - incapable of portraying the wide diversity of opinions within the community. There are always shades of grey and adherence to a strict ideological position serves only to stifle perceptive discourse and trans-ideological alternatives. In fact the only thing left is the constant sniping and blaming that substitutes for real strategic conversation and effective dialogue.

Naturally there are many minor issues contributing to the incompetence and vanity of governments. The lack of even the most basic leadership literacies, including relational skills, an ability to comprehend and visualise the dynamics of socio-economic systems, critical thinking and strategic foresight, among elected delegates is proving to be a huge barrier in their ability to understand and resolve systemic challenges in complex contexts. Others worth noting are the adequacy of the law and its execution in dealing with the niceties of modern life; the attractor of the present as a detractor that inhibits the crafting of mindful future narratives; and the restraints placed upon community inputs to policy formulation and decision making.

Collectively these exemplify a system in a state of exhaustion if not collapse. We can not hide from that fact any longer. Vast numbers of citizens are turning their backs on mainstream parties and orthodox ways of crafting and executing policy. It is not difficult to understand why. It does not require someone with a Ph.D to comprehend the fact that we have lost trust in the system to deliver. Put simply, our elected representatives, undoubtedly upright citizens armed with good intentions when they enlist, are systematically seduced by the privileges of power, troubled by the complexity of the issues facing society, and trapped within a system that resists real reform.

Additionally some politicians, particularly those whose performance credentials reward them with a voice in Cabinet, gradually seem to develop a psychological condition commonly found in mental health patients traumatised by indecision. Refusing to accept advice from anyone other than their closest associates, yet also unsure of what to do next, they go on the defensive – fibbing and bluffing in the most extravagant of ways. Professing certainty they dig in their heels, believing they, and they alone, are in the privileged position of knowing what is right.

In this mode they govern - or at least that is their illusion. But witnesses to this farce can see the truth. As a consequence trust is in crisis. It really is as simple and as scary as that.

[1] Requiem for the Nation State in Reforming the Public Sector (ed. C. Clark and D. Corbett, Allen & Unwin, 1999)