Trust in Crisis
The recent federal election in Australia saw a dramatic collapse in the trust citizens have in mainstream political parties, irrespective of their ideological makeup. People voted for solutions rather than political parties. In all the thanatalogical post-mortem angst, very few analysts have pondered the sudden tectonic shift away from long-held orthodoxies. Yet it is highly probable that the political landscape will fragment further during the coming years.
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 alternate ways to manage human affairs, given rapid technological convergence and hyper-connectivity, the volatility of global markets, new social constructs, and the inevitability of escalating geopolitical rivalry.
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, I suggested, corporate power, including that of the press, would intensify, while many of our most revered public institutions would have 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 that on a scale that was unprecedented. This would not be easy. Openness, responsiveness and empathy were uncommon qualities in public sector organizations at the time. They remain so today.
Corporations have already begun to show signs of stress - toiling to adapt to an impending post-capitalist global environment of increasing volatility. 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 that have lurched to the right. Central agencies remain embedded in an obsolete paradigm and rely on a variety of defensive tactics and mechanisms to shield themselves against trends they fear yet do not fully comprehend. Most governments, however, are stuck in a state of semi-permanent denial that they should need to reconceptualise their role.
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 - as well as 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 and protect. Furthermore the growing attitude by elected political parties that citizens do not have sufficient knowledge, nor the inclination, to engage with the political process, assumes a governing elite, a political class, and a duopoly 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 and now have evidence to support that view.
Such a scenario is an outrageous falsification of what is intended by those who believe in democracy. It legitimizes 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 mainstream political parties. For advocates of democracy as a liberating and unifying force the trend is both alarming and ominous.
Some elected representatives seriously suggest that democracy would be more robust if citizens would just keep out of the fray and mind their own business - letting ‘professional’ 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 grave a matter to sweep under the carpet. Yet few voices are raised in protest at such outrageous statements. No media outlet takes issue with such an hypothesis. I can't 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 a sign of the extent to which society has become sedated by constant ennui of the present aimed at discouraging 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, possibly the most cherished and fundamental precept in the human behavioural code, was also the most endangered. Trust among and between individuals at a generic level but also, more implicitly, as the community's faith 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 alertness of both issues and context to be able to make policy decisions that benefit the majority of citizens.
I also recall suggesting, as an ironic aside, that anyone actively seeking public office should be automatically barred 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, and we could start by designing selection criteria that would prevent sociopaths and extreme narcissists from applying.
Today all my earlier concerns and 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 uneasily over the surface of the system, trying in vain to avoid cracks in the ice. None of us is perfect. Our flaws and fickleness, particularly under pressure, mark us out as easy targets for censure. In the cut and thrust of daily political life however, the constant craving for public stoushes, which the mass media then feeds by recasting differences of opinion as infotainment, is effortlessly satisfied.
But it is the governance system as a whole - the extent to which it is insecure, open to exploitation, vulnerable to deep fakes and data hacks of every conceivable kind (not only by foreign agents) along with malicious programs of disinformation, propaganda, and an inability to deal with the sheer complexity of the modern world - to which we should really be turning our attention.
Central to any inquiry of this nature, of course, must be our confidence in the political process - principally in the capacity of representatives, elected or appointed, to grasp and address in an unbiased and intelligent manner, dynamically complex policy issues within society. Today that confidence is collapsing before our eyes. There seem to be two key reasons for this:
The notion that one person can authentically represent the complex demands of a constituency no longer works - although we still pretend there is no alternative. The principle of an elected official being able to represent the views of a group of people in an unbiased manner was always far from perfect. 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 and travel to the capital was difficult, it is antiquated nonsense in a world where hundreds of thousands of people live in some electorates - most of them possessing the technologies and education to be able to voice their concerns and vote on any issue in real-time. The truth that it is impossible for any local member to adequately represent the sophistication of our views on every issue before the parliament invariably leads to disappointment and frustration. If this part of the system cannot be consigned to history then it at least needs urgent re-engineering.
If, in spite of the fundamental flaws I have already raised, we are more comfortable staying within the context of representative democracy, we must come to terms with the fact that ideological or partisan constraints are distracting frameworks for policy design of any kind, particularly where issues containing the most subtle of nuances necessitate a comprehensive forensic analysis to be sure that the consequences are fully appreciated and taken into account. The archaic adoption of dualism, a Cartesian convenience in which opposing beliefs of a group are simply categorized as left or right of centre, is void of meaning today. In terms of framing, analysis, debate, insights, policy formulation and administration, dualism is incapable of portraying the diversity of solutions required. There are always shades of grey that matter. Adherence to any formal ideological position serves only to stifle perceptive discourse and trans-ideological alternatives.
Naturally, there are many additional issues contributing to the growing incompetence and vanity of governments. A lack of the most elementary public sector management literacies (relational skills, an ability to comprehend and visualize complex patterns in social and economic systems, critical thinking, human-centered design, and strategic foresight for example) among elected representatives is proving to be a huge barrier in their ability to understand and resolve dynamic challenges in disorder.
Another factor is a paucity of induction rituals and conditioning that actually work - a reason possibly why ethical standards remain unclear to so many politicians who then demonstrate their worst qualities when succumbing to stress.
Others worth noting are the inadequacy of the law and its execution in dealing with the intricacies of a modern civilization; the attractor of the present as a detractor inhibiting the crafting of mindful future narratives; and unwise curbs placed upon independent voices and community inputs to policy formulation and decision making.
Collectively these exemplify a system in a state of exhaustion if not collapse. We cannot 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 because of their evident irrelevance. It is not difficult to understand why. It doesn’t require a Ph.D. to comprehend the critical loss of trust within the community in the capability of the system to deliver. Put bluntly, our representatives, mostly upright citizens armed with good intentions when they enroll, are systematically corrupted by the privileges of office, kept at arms length from the public by protocols ostensibly in place to protect their security, troubled by the complexity of the issues facing society, and trapped within an archaic system that resists real reform.
Additionally, we are dealing with two pathologies that are quite distinct and equally hazardous. Some politicians, particularly those whose performance credentials reward them with a voice in Cabinet, seem to develop a psychological condition commonly found in patients traumatized 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.
A second group exhibit what is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This cognitive bias persuades people with low abilities, yet high levels of self-righteousness that is impossible to dislodge, that they are more able to act than others. Confident in their own perspicacity and wisdom, all the while professing certainty in a context of ambiguity and unpredictability, they refuse to budge, convinced they are in the singularly privileged position of knowing what is right and in the best interests of the community.
In this mood, and with these disabilities, they govern. 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)