top of page
Search

Trust in societies

Writer's picture: CroneCrone

David Miliband, the former UK minister, is now head of the International Rescue Committee. He was interviewed by Sam Harris recently. I only mention this because at one point in the discussion he claimed that trust is the single most important factor in a crisis: the people have to be able to trust their government, their health services, their law enforcement and so on. Trust is significant all the time, but in a state of emergency, it's importance is raised to critical levels.


Just looking at the pandemic - and this is far from an exhaustive list - the UK government's delays in decision making dented trust; the troubles of supply and transport of supplies (PPE) and necessary equipment (ventilators); the failure to sanction Dominic Cummings for the breach of lockdown; the confusion over exam results; anomalies in current quarantine requirements; failures of openness and transparency... there has been a great deal to corrode trust. On the other hand, I actually think that the strict lockdown phase was managed fairly well, as was the financial support (not that I got/get any) and the rapid construction of the Nightingale hospitals. Taking into account that this was, whether or not it should have been foreseen, unprecedented and that the science was moving fast, and we have some mitigating factors for a certain amount of fallibility in dealing with the emergency.


However, my relative generosity even faced with a government I do not especially like, stands in contrast to a large and increasing percentage of citizens. Cambridge University published a report this year which found that almost half of people surveyed across more than 150 countries are dissatisfied with the state of democracy. The UK is showing its highest ever levels of discontent in the democratic process.


Now, some on the left might feel this way due to the role of data and Dominic in the Brexit campaign, of markets and money more widely and of populism as a rising force; while some on the right might be concerned at the increasing influence of distant technocrats - the analysis in National Populism, Nervous States and indeed The Inner Level all cite various reasons why citizens may feel increasing cut off from those with money, those in power and those seemingly telling them 'how to behave'.


In the UK, trust in the NHS (divorced from its ministerial bosses) remains high and, as Will Davies suggests, offers a route whereby decision makers can seek to regain lost ground with the electorate. Though this, to me, suggests the nightmarish possibility of the NHS being 'used' rather than strengthened. But, even assuming that the NHS offers a bridge to rebuild trust (a dodgy turn of phrase), just scaffolding trust in that way is not enough.


If a state, and here I separate the state from the individual government, is to regain or retain the trust of the citizens it has to show that the trust is merited - through transparency, admission of faults, willingness to listen, willingness to redress wrongs, equal treatment of and respect for all, clear processes of analysis, criticism and restructuring and the like.


This is a big task, clearly.


But the case I would make is that an investment of time and resources on this basis, in order to improve standards, communication, equality and justice - thereby increasing trust - would improve the well-being of current citizens (in a broad range of ways) and of however many future generations until the state collapsed at some distant date (or near date through climate change... but let's avoid the pessimism). Where the state is seen as genuinely trustworthy, with aims not for the ruling, powerful, wealthy or intellectual elites but for all equally, surely there would be more buy-in to deal with the huge policy changes required for dealing with climate change? Where people felt a part of, not a pawn in the political game of, their state, surely the harms currently caused by inequality would be ramped down - and from top to bottom, all would have happier, more flourishing lives? Surely where there is a greater sense of pride in and investment in the foundational ethos of the state, citizens would be more engaged in social projects, rather than feeling cut off from them or imposed upon? Surely where the sense of scarcity declines, empathy would increase and there would be greater acceptance of and pride in the state's support for other nations?


I am sketching here - but the reason I think this is important is that whereas the case of focusing attention on giving 10% of one's salary to a malaria charity to save 20 lives, say, offers neat arithmetical proof of moral worth, perhaps a like investment (of time, money, even emotional commitment!) in bettering the state of one's nation structurally, politically, philosophically, democratically, might actually in the course of time reap equivalent or greater benefits in terms of maximising happiness. The algorithm might not be so neat. You'd need to make a leap of faith, but where we have a world full of failing nations with disintegrating democracy we have a world of maximising misery. To feel satisfied by 10% = 20 lives and I'll get on with my day now, thanks, might seem less responsible, less moral in that framing of reality.


But of course, it takes trust in something greater than 10% of one's salary and the auditing of charities on GiveMoney.org. It takes trust in the ability of a nation to pull itself from a slough of despond, corruption and discontent. Yet if we fail to have that trust, fail to make conditions for a buy-in about global warming, fail to encourage empathy and confidence and well-being, then aren't we just plastering over the cracks?


Sure, the state needs to trust its citizens and the citizens need to trust the state. The latter will demand work on the state's behalf - but that work can never get off the ground while we fail to see the importance of it, while we fail to be able to trust in our fellow citizens' ability to be honourable, to be communitarian, to be committed. Giving money allows us to close our eyes to this problem and feel confident of our own nobility, but I think that we need to do more and do differently.


And this is the case for all interest and identity groups, for all classes. Like it or not, we're all stuck here as citizens of this country and more widely of this world. Let's band together and do something about it rather than fighting only for our own interests. As we hope the rich and powerful will cede some of their greatness, so we may have to let go of some of what seems precious to us (even if just the moral high ground), but, in the greater good, as the utilitarians show us, some sacrifices are worth it.


My demand or hope for this kind of trust seems.... utopian. Much 'easier' to give 10%.

9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Commentaires


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

©2019 by The Wisdom of the Crone. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page