Democracy runs on trust – and what happens when it breaks
When citizens stop believing their fellow citizens act in good faith, democracy begins to strain. New international data suggests that the US may already be there – and the growing collapse of political trust in the UK and Scotland raises uncomfortable questions about where we are heading.
A recent international survey produced a striking finding about the United States. Across 25 countries, researchers asked people a simple question: How moral are the people in your country?
In almost every country surveyed, the majority of respondents said their fellow citizens had good morals. Only one country stood apart. In the U.S., a majority – 53% of adults – said that other Americans have bad morals and ethics, while only 47% said they were good. It is an extraordinary result. Not because Americans are uniquely immoral or unusually judgmental, but because it reveals something much deeper: the collapse of social trust.
Trust is the invisible infrastructure of democracy. It is rarely discussed, but without it, democratic systems struggle to function. People must believe that elections are legitimate, that institutions operate in the public interest, and that their fellow citizens are participating in politics in good faith. Where that trust exists, political disagreement is manageable. Where it disappears, politics becomes something else entirely.
Democracy does not collapse when people disagree. It collapses when citizens stop believing that their opponents are acting in good faith. That appears increasingly to be the American condition.
The data does not exist in isolation. For years, American politics has been moving towards a form of polarisation that goes far beyond policy disagreements. Republicans and Democrats increasingly see each other not simply as political opponents but as morally suspect. Members of the other party are widely described as dishonest, immoral or dangerous. Elections, therefore, become existential contests: losing is not simply disappointing but intolerable, because it means handing power to people perceived as fundamentally bad.
In that environment, compromise begins to look like betrayal.
The consequences are visible in American political life: permanent institutional conflict, declining trust in elections, and growing fears about political violence. When politics is understood as a struggle between good and evil rather than competing visions of policy, the basic mechanisms of democracy begin to strain. It is not that the American Constitution has stopped functioning. Rather, the social foundations that allow a democratic system to operate are eroding.
The relationship between democracy and trust is mutually reinforcing. Institutions that operate transparently and fairly tend to generate trust over time. In turn, that trust makes governance easier: people are more willing to comply with the rules, pay taxes, and accept decisions even when they disagree with them.
Where trust collapses, the opposite dynamic emerges. Every political decision is interpreted through suspicion. Governments are assumed to be acting in bad faith. Political opponents are viewed not as fellow citizens but as threats. This dramatically raises the cost of governing. Institutions may remain in place, but their legitimacy weakens.
The American case is therefore not simply an odd cultural curiosity. It is a warning about what happens when social trust deteriorates within a democratic system.
And the uncomfortable truth is that the dynamics driving this collapse are not uniquely American. Across the UK, trust in political institutions has been failing for years. Surveys consistently show a profound disconnect between the public and the political class. One recent survey found that only around 14% of people say they trust politicians, while more than half believe elected representatives do not care about people like them.
This level of distrust is not an abstract problem. It has real consequences for how politics function. When voters assume politicians will lie or manipulate outcomes regardless of what they promise, democratic accountability weakens. Elections become less about genuine mandates and more about choosing between options that people expect to disappoint them.
“Democracy does not collapse when people disagree. It collapses when citizens stop believing that their opponents are acting in good faith.”
The problem is compounded when political strategy appears to reinforce that cynicism. Much of the criticism directed at the current UK government stems from a perception that it has pursued a politics of calculated ambiguity – promising different things to different audiences while quietly abandoning commitments once in power.
Whether that interpretation is fair or not, the perception itself matters. When voters believe they are being deliberately misled, trust erodes further. And once lost, trust is extremely difficult to rebuild.
It would be comforting to imagine that this problem exists only at Westminster. But Scotland is hardly immune. The past few years have seen a series of controversies and internal crises that have damaged public confidence in Scotland’s political institutions. The prolonged turmoil within the Scottish Government and the wider independence movement has left many voters disillusioned with a political system that once appeared comparatively stable.
Polling increasingly suggests a broader frustration with all major parties. Public dissatisfaction with the performance of government – both at Holyrood and Westminster – has become a recurring theme. Voters who once placed significant trust in Scotland’s political leadership are increasingly skeptical about whether anyone is genuinely acting in the public interest.
That erosion of trust matters because Scotland has historically benefited from relatively high levels of social trust compared to many other political systems. Communities where citizens broadly believe institutions are working for them tend to experience lower levels of political instability and stronger democratic participation.
But trust is not permanent. It can decline surprisingly quickly when political leadership appears self-interested, opaque or disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of declining trust is that it gradually becomes normalised. Politics starts to operate under the assumption that voters expect dishonesty, that institutions are inherently suspect, and that political opponents are fundamentally illegitimate. Once those assumptions become embedded, they begin to shape behaviour across the entire political system.
Parties adopt more cynical strategies because they assume voters already expect the worst. Citizens disengage because they feel their participation makes little difference. Media coverage amplifies conflict because outrage attracts attention.
Over time, the cumulative effect is corrosive. Democracy may continue to function formally – elections still take place, institutions still operate – but the shared civic foundation that sustains those institutions weakens.
This is precisely why the American data is so striking. When a majority of citizens believe their fellow citizens are morally bad, the social glue that holds a democracy together has already begun to dissolve.
The lesson is not that the US is uniquely dysfunctional, nor that the UK or Scotland are inevitably heading down the same path. But the trajectory should give pause. Democratic institutions are remarkably resilient, but they depend on a basic level of social trust to function properly. That trust cannot be manufactured through slogans or institutional reforms alone. It emerges slowly from political cultures that reward honesty, transparency and genuine accountability.
If citizens come to believe that politics is little more than an arena for manipulation and self-interest, rebuilding trust becomes a generational project.
The question facing the UK and Scotland is simply who governs, or which policies are pursued. It is whether the political system can sustain the social trust on which democracy ultimately depends. Because once that trust disappears, democracy becomes much harder to hold together.
