Political trust is faith in a government’s competence to take heed of essential matters that concern people in a political regime. It is better understood as an evaluative psychological state that gauges how well the government is functioning in response to the normative expectations of its citizens. Assessing political trust forms an important cornerstone of understanding political behavior research. The following description and analysis builds partly on a book edited by Uslaner (2017) devoted to the study of social and political trust. It is distinct from social or generalized trust that emerges from socialization processes and not from governmental evaluation or connection to specific groups. Although political trust induces positive outcomes such as political participation, tax compliance, and support for political leaders, social trust engenders greater well-being and a cooperative sense of governance (Uslaner, 2017).
Political trust, as an offshoot of political support, is typically an attitude and if culture influences the process of appraising information as has been commonly argued, then it is imperative to explore how it impacts political trust (Shi, 2014). Three major perspectives mark the field of political trust research. The social-psychological approach holds the individual's personality and disposition to show (or not show) trust in political institutions as an originator of trust. The institutional perspective argues that political trust is a derivative of the government's behavior, i.e. political trust is determined by the approach and policies of the government; cognitive judgments concerning adequate institutional conduct heighten trustworthiness. Culturalists, on the other hand, posit that trust emerges through interpersonal interactions that propel engagement in civic behavior and overflows into the political ethos. For example, a particular generation will internalize democratic ideals and demonstrate a higher tendency to trust political institutions if its members were born under a political regime.
Patterns of Political Trust Around the World
There has been an uproar about the loss of political trust around the world in general. The recent Brexit referendum presents one instance that shows the erosion of political trust in the UK. The dwindling economy, immigration activities, free economic policies, and anti-establishment politics were among the various reasons for the UK to make its exit. The growing income disparity between the poor and the rich is established as the primary cause for lower political trust in the poorest section of the UK by the 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer.
Investigations into how direct democracy impacts political trust have produced miscellaneous results. Building on the European Social Survey (2006, 2008), a study reported political trust to be higher in those with highly proportionate and disproportionate electoral results. Another study, on the other hand, linked the presence of democratic rights to greater levels of political trust. Yet another study brought forth insights from political psychology, particularly the moderating role of personality traits like agreeableness. The study reported that people scoring high on this trait may perceive direct democracy as an indicator of conflict that may dampen their levels of political trust.
The Global Barometer Surveys make a comprehensive attempt to empirically gauge fluctuations in political trust worldwide, particularly whether Asians demonstrate more trust in their governments than people from elsewhere. As reported by Shi (2014), people from four regions—Africa, east Asia, Latin America, and Eastern—were asked to indicate their level of trust in political institutions like the army, the judiciary, parliament, and the ruling party. An analysis of data at the turn of the 21st century indicated noteworthy findings. Asians did show the greatest level of political trust in their government, with a mean value of 49%, followed by Africa (43%), New Europe (26%), and Latin America (20%). There were also considerable differences between countries in the same region. For example, PRC had a value of 85% despite being an authoritarian state, while Japan exhibited a mere 36% of political trust. These results require additional deliberation since it has been argued that these findings are contaminated by political fear/persecution. However, the questions calling for the validity of the measures to tap political trust have been resolved—one for the simple reason that the multiple surveys by independent scholars have yielded similar results time and again. Further, the intercorrelation between political fear and political trust has been found to be either negative or statistically non-significant, thereby indicating that fear does not impact people’s responses to questions on political trust (Shi, 2014).
Assessing patterns of political trust in India through the National Election Studies (NES) post-poll surveys, Indian researchers found that people showcase diffused trust in institutions but not so much in those who occupy these spaces in the political sphere (e.g. government officials, political parties, etc). It was also found that popular trust in the judiciary grew significantly by 4% during 1996-2009. Reasons for these patterns are too simplistic, riding on an overall consolidation of trust over time. An overall 2% increase in all kinds of institutional trust has been noted from the 2005-2013 term.
The State of Democracy in South Asia (SDSA) also suggests that consolidated democracies in East Asia have been responsible for increased institutional trust. For example, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have added advanced economies and cultural homogeneity to engender greater levels of trust, both social and political. Despite this, these countries rank low in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2013 survey that measures citizens’ confidence in the government. PT in most new democracies (representing Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia) declined partially due to what has been termed as the “post-honeymoon disillusionment”, when expectations were unmet by governmental performance during the process of transition. Since new democracies are often indisposed with corruption, economic complexities, or ethnic dissensions, it intensifies conditions that contribute to distrust. It is only when its citizens perceive that their government is performing efficiently on both the economic front (employment levels) and the political front (lower corruption) that they exhibit a greater degree of institutional trust, thereby validating the institutional/rational choice perspective about trust emergence.
Overall, a wide and disparate range of variables holds value in understanding the development of political trust globally. The overall experiences with one's government as well as the evaluation of its performance, economic conditions, and corruption, as well as personality and individual traits explain people’s trust in a political regime. Empirical work delving into the cause-and-effect relationship is still in its infancy and therefore more contemporary research is needed to produce more consistent results.
Zarnab Zahoor
First featured in: Psychology Today (15/06/2023)
