Public Opinion Briefing Vol. 29-2: Factors Causing a Crisis of Political Trust

Public Opinion Briefing Vol. 29: The Crisis of Democracy as Seen Through International Public Opinion

Topic 1: Is Democracy Facing a Crisis?

Topic 2: Factors Causing a Crisis of Political Trust

Topic 3: Challenges for Korean Democracy: Restoring the Foundation of Political Trust

Topic 2. Factors Causing a Crisis of Political Trust

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

What are the causes of the crisis of trust faced by governments in democratic states, and what are their harmful consequences?

Crisis of representativeness is a major cause of government distrust

First, distrust in the government's democratic representativeness significantly undermines its political legitimacy. The vitality of democratic institutions is realized when the government and political sphere broadly represent and harmoniously realize the positions and interests of strata and groups with diverse interests. Otherwise, transaction costs in policy implementation processes due to socio-political conflicts increase significantly, and the government's governing function is greatly weakened.

The survey results showed that 63% of all respondents believed the government represents the interests of a few powerful interest groups, while only 30% believed it represents the interests of the entire population. In particular, distrust was high in countries where government distrust was high, such as Mexico (83%), the United States (80%), South Korea (78%), and Argentina (71%), with the belief that the government represents special interests. In contrast, in countries like China, Egypt, Jordan, and Russia, which showed high trust in their own governments, distrust in the government representing powerful interest groups was relatively low [Figure 1].

Even if a government is elected through fair elections, if a large portion of the public feels that the government only represents the interests of special interest groups, they will inevitably view all government actions with suspicion. This not only stimulates citizens' sense of political alienation but also leads to the side effect of significantly increasing transaction costs in the policy promotion process.

[Figure 1] The government represents only the interests of a few powerful interest groups (%)

Note 1. This refers to the proportion of respondents who answered 'yes' to the question: "Is this country run for the benefit of some interest groups?" versus "Is it run for the benefit of the entire population?"

Crisis of responsiveness: The gap between the expectation of representing public opinion and reality

Second, for democracy to be vital, the state must not merely be an object of rule, but the diverse opinions of the people must be reflected in policy processes in a timely manner. That is, when state administration sensitively responds to and communicates with public opinion, citizens actively participate in the political process with a sense of ownership and cooperate actively with state affairs. Conversely, when they feel that the state is insensitive or even ignores public opinion, their distrust in the government grows.

When asked how much they expect the state administration to respond to public opinion and how much it actually does, the expectation that state governance should be more sensitive to public opinion was high, but the negative evaluation that actual state administration is insensitive to public opinion was dominant. When asked to rate on a scale of 10 how much state administration should reflect public opinion, the global average response was 8, indicating a very high expectation. However, the assessment of how much their own country is currently governed according to public opinion was only 4.5.

In China and the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, where government trust was high, not only was the expectation for the government to be sensitive to public opinion high, but the evaluation of the actual degree of government responsiveness was also relatively favorable. Chinese citizens gave an expectation level of 8 for the government's responsiveness to public opinion and the highest score of 6.7 for the current Chinese government's responsiveness. In Islamic countries such as Iran, Indonesia, Jordan, and Turkey, scores of 5 or higher were given for their own government's responsiveness, indicating that there was no significant gap between their expectations and actual evaluations. In contrast, in the United Kingdom (4.9), France (4.6), South Korea (4.6), and the United States (4), where government distrust was high, scores were significantly below average, indicating a strong tendency to believe that the government overlooks or ignores public opinion [Figure 2].

[Figure 2] Government Responsiveness to Public Opinion: Expectation and Evaluation (Scale of 10)

Note 1. Expectation for democratic governance is the average score given by respondents to the question 'How much do you think this country should be governed based on public opinion?', with 0 points for 'not at all' and 10 points for 'entirely', and 5 points as the midpoint. Evaluation of one's own country's governance is calculated by averaging the scores given to the question 'How much is this country currently governed based on public opinion?' on the same scale. Therefore, a score closer to 10 means more democratic, and a score less than 5 means it is governed undemocratically.

Crisis of effectiveness: Distrust in the government's ability to revitalize the economy

Third, as argued by Juan Linz, a prominent theorist of democracy, for democracy to be vital and sustainable, it must secure legitimacy through democratic procedures while also achieving effective performance. While authoritarian regimes have historically secured their basis for rule through economic performance, abandoning democratic legitimacy, early democratic regimes tend to focus on securing legitimacy through past atonement or reform of old systems rather than improving economic performance or regime efficiency. However, after a certain point, any democratic government that fails to demonstrate governing capacity supported by economic performance will become an object of public distrust, regardless of its legitimacy.

To examine the correlation between economic performance and public trust in government in each country, we cross-referenced GDP growth rates with government trust percentages. While Ukraine and Argentina show low government trust despite high GDP growth rates, and South Korea shows relatively good GDP growth rates but the worst government trust, generally countries with high economic growth rates such as China (10.7%), Peru (7.7%), Russia (6.7%), and Egypt (6.8%), Jordan (5.7%) show relatively high government trust. In the case of South Korea, if we consider subjective economic sentiment instead of objective economic indicators, it cannot be said to be a case that denies the relationship between economic performance and government distrust. This suggests that changes in government trust can be influenced by the government's economic performance.

[Figure 3] Relationship between GDP Growth Rate and Government Trust

Note 1. GDP growth rate is based on current US dollar exchange rates (World Bank, WDI 2007).