Bringing Back Public Trust

"Sufficient food, a strong army, and the trust of the people…. without the trust of the people, no government could survive," replied the master, when Zigong asked Confucius about the essence of government. Only a handful of corrupt politicians, elite and the professionals are responsible for a litany of betrayals of public trust in institutions and governments. Unfortunately these handfuls of unscrupulous have their way with the system because of the silence of the non-corrupt.

Public trust in government is the essence of good governance. It defines the relationship between citizens and government and determines the acceptability and effectiveness of public policies.  When citizens trust their government, they are more likely to have faith in the long-term benefits of public policies even when some policies appear to be counterproductive in the short term.

Trust in institutions is an extension of trust in people. People trust a company, for instance, because their interactions with it have been successful, even when they don't see the faces of the people behind those interactions.  Government is no different. People know the functionaries at the top though they may trust some and not some. People also get to know some others, usually in the lower hierarchies with whom they interact on emails, phones and over the counter.

The problem is that lower level bureaucrats have much less power or authority than what people think or maybe wish for them to have, a typical boundary-level problem. These bureaucrats are bound by  a system that's designed  to work top-down and is not  adept at handling anything outside  "business as usual". Negative incentives to be open as a public servant are too many to count. They may have empathy with people but they do not have the means to do something about it.  Most of them therefore take on the mask of arrogance, aloofness and apathy to people primarily to cover up for their inadequacy and protect their self-esteem. A peek behind their institutional mask, most of them have the same concerns and desire for improvement and positive change as those who demand that change from them. They are concerned citizens, like the rest of the people. Exceptions aside, most public servants would love to see the same things that frustrate the rest of people, fixed.

Transparency and participation are no longer an option but two indispensable pillars in the trust relationships between citizens and institutions.  People are not content with voting every 4-5 years: they demand, and have come to expect, spaces to present their concerns and ideas. This enables elements of direct democracy – where decision-making power of a person is not delegate to a distanced government, rather the person is part of the decision-making.  Citizens' lack of confidence and distance from institutions and their distrust in the ability of those that should meet their needs cannot be ignored. To restore trust we need to recreate governance from the ground up, and put citizens (back) at the heart of institutions.

Unfortunately, the democratic values and principles associated with reforms oriented to increasing transparency, accountability and modernization processes – are unknown or not well-understood by public servants, especially those in lower level positions. These officials often hold positions attending the public and receiving information requests, which means their lack of knowledge and understanding can limit the citizens' ability to fully exercise their rights. It implies that along with transparency reforms, more serious efforts need to be made to train public servants in the structures of the bureaucratic system.

Similar challenges are faced by the general public, where there is a pronounced lack of knowledge and understanding of the norms, mechanisms and obligations associated with these institutional efforts, as well as a strong and growing skepticism about their potential to increase accountability or prevent corruption.  Sadly, many policymakers have acted as if participation is their gift to bestow upon constituents. For them, transparency or participation clashes with the institutional culture.

The correction has to begin at that level of government where interaction with citizens is greatest and let the transformation grow from there. The solution therefore lies in focussing on transparency, participation, inclusion and fairness at the lower levels of bureaucracy.  There are always some "Champions" within the government. Only a few of them are visible. Need is to find them in every nook and cranny of government so that they are not lone champions, but a coalition of reformers.

Public servants have to be empowered to work with other actors, and permissions and structures enabling them to act upon external inputs anytime should be institutionalised. Introducing regulations to hold good  quality co-creation processes, ensuring funding and  mechanisms to act on citizen feedback, collecting  feedback from public servants, and recognizing  and encouraging innovative practices of co-creation  or even whistle-blowing, can go a long  way in empowering lower level public servants. If we allow those in government (not to be  confused with those in  power!) to act openly, to  be honest, to admit the  unknown and embrace the  problematic, then they will  be able to build the trust  that is desperately being sought,  from the bottom-up.

And what is about the top-level bureaucracy and those in power? They will only be surprised and happy about the success of a project which was implemented with all proper approvals, but without them having to get involved at all. They would jump upon the opportunity of showcasing to their constituents, such success, as an example of their efficient and effective governance.

Government can earn trust only when change is visible and reform hits like a wave – fast; but ready to dissolve should the wave (reform) face an obstacle. There is no place for arrogance and obstinacy in governance.