The importance of political trust

Political trust refers to people’s positive expectations that the political system, the institutions which comprise it and the actors who participate in its operations will do what they have said they will do, that they will act in the public interest and that they will conduct themselves in a manner which does not disrespect the democratic process.

Political scientists use the terms “diffuse” and “specific” to differentiate between trust in the political system as a whole, and trust in individual actors. Asked to rank occupations in terms of trustworthiness, respondents typically place politicians at or near the bottom of the list. Individuals who have first-hand experience dealing with politicians tend to have more positive viewpoints.

Unfortunately, systematic surveys on trust levels in Manitoba are rare, so any discussion must be based on national results.

Beginning in the late 1960s, a slow erosion of trust in Canadian politicians and political institutions began, with only occasional, short-lived upticks. In the summer of 2025, a national Environics survey found that only a minority of Canadians had a lot of trust in political actors and institutions, such as the political parties and Parliament. The survey report also revealed that trust levels had held steady over the past 15 years.

Such findings indicate that Canada is not experiencing a “crisis” of trust. Compared to other countries, ours remains a relatively “high trust” political system. There is, however, a worrisome “trust deficit” which makes it more difficult for governments and legislatures to mobilize public support for their policies, including taxing decisions and other actions, especially those which are highly controversial.

For example, an earlier, 2023 survey found that 70 per cent of respondents believed that elected representatives quickly lost touch with the people who elected them. Over 60 per cent believed that political leaders and their parties often break promises made to get themselves elected. Over 50 per cent believed that politicians used tax dollars to buy votes. In a seeming contradiction, three quarters of respondents have in the past agreed that Canada has the best political system in the world.

Care must be taken in interpreting both negative and positive findings, because polls seldom measure the knowledge foundation which supports trust sentiments. A significant percentage of Canadians pay little or no attention to public affairs and many lack sound knowledge of the fundamental features of our political system.

In response to scandals and rising mistrust, legislatures have over time introduced a web of rules, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms which might be called an “ accountability branch” of government. It is relatively small but it can be influential in the governing process.

The accountability branch is comprised of such semi-independent offices as auditors general, integrity and ethics commissioners; information and privacy commissioners; both general and specialized ombudsmen, language commissioners, elections agencies and commissioners; children and seniors advocates, and the list goes on. Such offices exist to promote and to protect important public-sector values and they are all in the business of building trust.

Once lost, trust is exceedingly difficult to rebuild. The array of multiple accountability mechanisms may have halted the decline of public trust but they have not so far restored faith in politicians to the levels of earlier decades. Every time a scandal breaks or an unseemly outbreak of incivility occurs in the legislature, trust in politicians suffers a setback.

There can never be sufficient rules and enforcement mechanisms to guarantee perfect integrity and full accountability in political life. We must always rely on the character and sense of responsibility of individual political actors. Equally important are the cultures within political parties and the legislature.

Leaders play a crucial role in shaping the beliefs, values and informal norms of behaviour of such cultures. To reduce misconduct and incivility, leaders must embody in their own conduct and language the elevated legal and ethical standards demanded by the public. They must also deal with the shenanigans involved with too many nomination contests and pay more attention to the character and background of the candidates in those contests.

Based on five decades of close observation, it is my impression that the culture and interpersonal climate within the Manitoba legislature has become increasingly hostile, uncivil and, at times, dysfunctional. Reforming the rules might help a bit but modifying the institutional culture would be more beneficial. I am not suggesting that disagreement and passion should, or could, be driven out of the legislature. But emotion must be balanced by constructive debate, respectful conduct and the avoidance of personal attacks on MLAs on the other side, who are opponents, not enemies.

Trust is important in a democracy but unconditional trust in leaders and political parties can be dangerous, as we see in the U.S.A. with Donald Trump and a mainly docile Republican Party. The ideal is to avoid corrosive cynicism while preserving healthy skepticism towards politicians and political institutions.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba. This article is based on remarks made to the Speaker’s dinner for the Manitoba Association of Retired MLAs.