When public trust erodes

Generally, there are two categories of societies based on public trust in political systems, processes, politicians, and institutions: trust-based and conformity-based. A trust-based society operates democratically, primarily grounded in the principles of contract theory, as John Locke and others postulated. In this framework, citizens willingly cede some of their rights to the government, entrusting it to manage state affairs and ensure safety, security, wealth distribution and progress diligently, rationally, responsibly, and transparently. The government, in turn, recognises its citizens’ constitutional rights, including civic rights and freedoms, trusting them to make informed decisions and adhere to laws and regulations.

Conversely, a conformity-based society relies on a one-sided form of trust, where citizens are compelled to trust their government, which, in return, lacks trust in its people. It is partly caused by the lack of legitimacy as the government is either not appropriately elected in line with the constitutional requirements, if they ever exist, or operates through the support of a military junta or oppressive surveillance of police or military forces and partly by the deepening paranoia of the government in fear for retaliation of the public against its entrenched oppression.

This dynamic allows the government to impose its agendas, plans, and policies on people without consent. In such societies, individuals are acutely aware of the mutual distrust; they do not trust their government, and the government reciprocates this sentiment, often leading to a climate of fear, passive conformity and mutual hate.

The first type encompasses nearly all Western nations, which now share a sense of dwindling public trust in government and politicians. The second type includes countries that are not only undemocratic but also dictatorial, such as China, North Korea, Venezuela, Turkey, Brazil, and Kenya.

Despite the significant differences between these two societal types, they share some commonalities. A trust-based society requires a certain degree of conformity to established rules. At the same time, the conformity type necessitates a minimum level of trust from the government in its citizens to maintain peace, stability, and security - financially, socially, and politically. This mutual “trust” is crucial for the functioning of society.

What occurs when citizens lose faith in their government in trust-based and conformity-based societies? The result can be more catastrophic for the former than the latter. While the latter, accustomed to political corruption, inaction, incompetence, and violence over a certain time, will respond more predictably, the former may respond to it desperately or resolutely through a revolution, accept it gradually, or seek more authoritarian rule at the expense of losing civil liberties, eventually leading to state tyranny.

Let us focus on the case of the trust-based society with the following example. James Paterson, the Opposition home affairs spokesman, criticised the disruption caused by a heckler who cited the impact of 1.8 million migrants on the lives of Australians during Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s speech, calling Australians expressing their concerns as “ratbag protestors” and a threat to parliamentarians and warning that this will widen the gap between politicians and the public in his interview with David Speers on ABC news on Sunday 30 March 2025. Here, the causality is ironically inverted—the widening gap between the current government and the public makes many desperate to be heard. It is the effect but not the cause of the existing divide.

Compared to John Howard, who went on his famous morning walks, where he used to get “hackled” all the time and laugh while enjoying free and respectful questions from the public, can current Australian parliamentarians take a morning walk and enjoy being questioned? Who is to blame if there is relatively none now and there will be absolutely none in the future? People or parliamentarians?

In a trust-based society, when people gradually lose their trust in their government, it typically affects the foundational structure of the social contract, prompting individuals to exert more pressure on their government and elected politicians to uphold their original obligations - to serve the people rather than external entities, agendas, handlers or donors. In response, governments may counter this pressure through denial, defensiveness, or anger. James Paterson’s anger and call for parliamentarians to be protected from people signals a more divided society than ever.

When this approach of a government fails, politicians may resort to repressive measures, including censorship, calls for the imprisonment of “troublemakers”, and the intervention of legal institutions to suppress dissent. If citizens persist in their demands for accountability, they may ignite significant social disorder, disobedience and unrest. However, if the government also persists in employing ever more repressive measures instead of working towards restoring trust and preventing such extreme outcomes, things will only get worse on the ground. It is crucial to remember that restoring trust in the government is a two-way street, which requires both parties, the government and the public, to work together in good faith.

Of course, at such a time, many social saboteurs or ideological demagogues who exploit social unrest for their gain or to push their political agendas will take the opportunity to muddy the waters and further destabilise society. Only ordinary people will suffer from massive social chaos. Then, some will turn to the government to restore order in exchange for the limitations and even the annihilation of civil rights. Consequently, for social order, they will sacrifice their freedoms; for safety, they will seek absolute state control.

At this crucial moment, a trust-based society slides smoothly into a conformity-based society. People start to expect their governments to use all available means, regardless of how they opposed them in the first place, to establish social and political order—they will have no other option than to “trust” their government again. This time, this trust becomes “unconditional,” as in a conformity-based society, where the state is allowed to be all-controlling, heralding the end of the social contract that a democratic society rests on.

This is not merely an Australian issue but a challenge the West faces. The traditional belief in democracy has historically fostered trust in government, but as officials fail to heed the public’s calls for transparency, efficiency and accountability, public discontentment will grow. If this continues, society may descend into collective anger or despair, leading to widespread social unrest and potentially threatening the stability of the state.

In such a scenario, state tyranny is gradually established not necessarily out of the power hunger of a dictator or a civil war but out of a deliberate or negligent mismanagement of governments of public sentiments and concerns that makes people too desperate to beg for any control a state uses for social order. Strangely, the erosion of public trust leads to that of social order and cohesion, which leads further to the public request for the total erosion of freedoms in an authoritarian or totalitarian state, which, as in the case of the conformity-based society, is not interested in public trust anymore but in unconditional public obedience.

The absence of meaningful public trust could also lead to widespread violence and profound nihilism—epistemological, political, social, and psychological. This nihilism would permeate all facets of public life. When a deep sense of nihilism seizes people, they feel that their governments have betrayed them, and now they have nothing to lose - they become extremely dangerous. It will either make them mad to destroy everything or succumb to their depression. Ironically and sadly, only the first option will give people a last hope to recreate everything by destroying them first. And it may well be a transnational movement in the West. Nobody knows what comes from this inevitable mayhem - a more robust democracy or a new tyranny.