Across the globe, this evolution has led to the rise of populist movements and the election of headstrong, authoritarian leaders. The democratic system that became firmly rooted as the “right” way to govern in post-war Europe has faced scrutiny these last few years. Even in the world’s democratic hotbeds, including the US, Europe, and Australia, community members are increasingly questioning the value of democracy.

The erosion of democracy

The Economist‘s yearly Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index has analysed and documented this decline of global democracy year after year. In 2023, the Nordic countries (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark) continue to dominate the Democracy Index rankings, taking five of the top six spots, with New Zealand claiming second place. Norway remains the top-ranked country in the Democracy Index, thanks to high scores across all f ive categories of the index, especially electoral process and pluralism, political culture, and political participation. Countries in western Europe account for eight of the top ten places in the global democracy rankings and more than half (15) of the 24 nations classified as “full democracies”. Western Europe was also the best-performing region in 2023, being the only region to record an increase in its index score.

For the first time since the launch of the Democracy Index in 2006, western Europe has overtaken North America to become the highest-scoring region in the world in 2023. Western Europe region registered an improvement across two of the five categories of the Democracy Index in 2023 — bucking the general trend of decline in most regions — with the average scores for political participation and civil liberties rising compared with 2022. The regional score remained unchanged in the electoral process and pluralism and political culture categories. However, the region’s score for functioning of government declined modestly.

Following a tumultuous 2022 during which the UK appointed three prime ministers, there was greater surface stability in British politics in 2023, although the governing party remained in serious disarray. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, failed to revive the fortunes of the Conservative Party, which trails the opposition Labour Party in the polls by a double-digit margin as the country gears up for a general election in the autumn of 2024. Recent data from the World Values Survey show that confidence in government, particularly among millennials, has declined. Despite this, the UK’s global ranking remained stable at 18th and its overall score was unchanged.

To be clear: democracy isn’t a perfect system. In fact, Winston Churchill argued that it was actually the worst form of government, “except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Giving citizens with no political knowledge or interest the responsibility to define the government’s course is considered a flawed idea by many democracy critics. On the other hand, it’s important to realise that a democracy in the hands of those who are “knowledgeable” or “interested” is rooted in privilege. Very often, minorities or marginalised communities do not have the same access to the relevant information to form political opinions or cultivate an interest in political matters.

“A sense of deep, mutual trust between communities and their governments is essential for sustainable progress.”

To make our democracy stronger and more effective, we have to make sure that it represents a diverse set of voices from community members who have received the relevant information to weigh facts and form opinions. We have to build a culture of mutual trust between governments and citizens that moves society forward as a whole.

How trust and participation go hand in hand

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Many civic tech tools, including the Go Vocal platform, aim at empowering community members to participate in their local governments and local decision-making. The more people raise their voices and share their visions, the more governments are able to align their policies with what communities actually ask, need, or demand. But according to this article, “a lack of trust between citizenry and public officials might lead to ambivalence towards participating in democratic processes.”

A sense of mistrust in the government might stop people from participating. Maybe they feel as if their efforts won’t make a difference. Maybe they do not feel represented by their government. Or maybe they struggle with a more general sense of political mistrust. On the other hand, governments might be reluctant to launch a  participation project, fearing steep costs or impossible demands.

But a lack of mutual trust between community members and their governments creates a vicious cycle of mistrust and democratic erosion. Less participation weakens the democratic system, which in turn leads to even more mistrust and reluctance to participate. Breaking this cycle, and focusing on mutual trust, is essential.

We’ve talked a lot about how governments can increase trust and convince their community to raise their voices. Communicating in a clear and transparent way, collaborating with local partners, sharing successful case studies, respecting privacy guidelines, and creating recurring participation cycles are key ways for governments to increase trust among their residents. For governments, launching a citizen initiatives feature is a great way to empower community members and offer them the opportunity to participate, all while keeping a clear overview.  

But there’s another side to the same coin. If communities blindly truly trust their governments to act in their best interest, would they still be motivated to take matters into their own hands?

The numbers of the Economist’s Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index clearly showed that the erosion of global democracy sparked a rise in community participation across the globe. In this case, it seems like the salvation of democracy lies precisely in the mistrust that accelerates its destruction. Sounds complicated, so let’s unpack that.

Skepticism as a driving factor

As previously said, mutual trust is essential for governments and communities to collaborate on sustainable solutions that benefit the greater good. Residents may be reluctant to participate in a government that they do not trust. So far, this makes perfect sense.

But let’s drop all sense of nuance and imagine a (hypothetical) situation of total mutual trust. Why would individuals be motivated to actively participate in a government that they trust completely? Why would they launch initiatives if they trust the administration to decide and act on exactly what is right for them? And how could governments possibly find out what is right for their communities?

As it turns out, mistrust in politics can “promote healthy skepticism and stimulate political involvement.“ According to this blog post from the London School of Economics and Political Science, a deeply rooted sense of mistrust lies at the roots of the first participatory budgeting case in Porto Alegre, Brazil. In this case from the 1980s, participatory budgeting served as a valuable mechanism to allocate funds and redistribute power within underprivileged communities.

Of course, we’re not saying that creating a situation of mistrust is the way to go. Even in this particular case, the mistrust that had sparked the need for a participatory project fuelled negative sentiments about its value and outcome. A sense of deep, mutual trust between communities and governments is essential for sustainable progress. But this does mean that, much like your cherished glass of Merlot with dinner, skepticism can be a good thing in healthy doses. It motivates people to ask questions, challenges the ideas and decisions of the government, and most importantly, actively participate in local policy. In short: a mild sense of mistrust in the government is not always a dealbreaker.

How to master mild mistrust as a community member

If you’re a skeptical community member, there are tangible ways for you to use that energy to make changes and strengthen democracy in the process.

• Ask questions. If you’re not sure about a policy decision, a government initiative or the stance of a specific politician, do not hesitate to reach out to your administration. Write, post, tweet, and ask for an explanation. This creates a culture of accountability that offers you valid arguments for decisions and gives administrators a platform to voice their arguments.
  
• Launch a citizen initiative. Citizen initiatives are an excellent way for you to raise a question or concern and gather support for their initiative. For administrations, on the other hand, this is an easy way to get more insight into citizens’ concerns, wants and needs.
  
• Share ideas. Does your local government have a participation platform? Is it organising offline deliberation opportunities or town hall meetings? Raise your voice! Only by gathering a diverse range of opinions can your administration create a policy framework that benefits everyone.
  
• Talk to your community. By speaking to your neighbours and sharing opinions on certain (local) topics, you might be raising awareness without even knowing it. Healthy debate with your peers helps you to gain new perspectives, ask new questions, or share your sense of healthy skepticism – which in turn reinforces the culture of accountability and the motivation to participate.
  
• Take it to the streets! In the spring of 2019, school kids took to the streets every week to protest for better (and faster) climate action. This led not only to the establishment of an online Youth4Climate platform and a tidal wave of ideas to save the climate, but also a raised awareness about the urgency of the problem.

How governments can work with skeptical community members

• Launch a participation project. As we discussed earlier on, community members with a healthy dose of skepticism are more likely to participate in local government. Having a base of actively engaged residents is a treasure trove for local governments.
  
• Encourage citizen initiatives. Who knows better what communities want and need than the people themselves? Allowing community members to launch their own initiatives gives you valuable insight into their priorities. Plus, you get to define clear criteria and only have to consider the initiatives that check all the boxes.
  
• Be transparent. Show residents that you are approachable and willing to answer questions or clarify decisions. This stimulates dialogue between community members and the administration, which ultimately builds trust.

‍