Scotland’s trust in democracy is at risk, but a path out of decline is available

Yesterday's Daily Briefing expressed some scepticism that a summit of Scotland's ruling classes is likely to work as a solution to the 'rise of the far right' in Scotland. It argued that a resurgence of hard-right politics is a symptom of a wider problem, and that a failure in trust in democracy and its leaders is a significant factor.

This is heavily reinforced by a new study reported in today's Herald that shows rising degrees of disillusionment in politics generally in Scotland. Perhaps the headline results from this is that trust in political parties is well below the 'break even' point and trust in key democratic institutions is weak and weakening.

Respondents were asked to rate a number of institutions and actors on a scale from zero (don't trust at all) to 10 (completely trust). The result is that political parties score an average of 3.1 and politicians an average of 2.8. Any way round that you look at this, it is a pretty damning statement on the 'social contract' between those who rule and those who are ruled.

We are split on the role of diversity in policy-making – 58 per cent think it is important, 42 per cent think it gets in the way. This appears to be a fairly fundamental split in how the members of society frame big political issues.

There is some good news you may infer from it, but it is probably best not to get carried away with this. As our graph of the week shows this week, another study was published this week on attitudes in England and they are high on anger and low on hope. By comparison Scotland looks better – half the rate of anger, three times the rate of hope.

It is unwise to read too much into this since these were entirely different polling approaches and questions, but perhaps there is more chance of an avenue out of disillusionment in Scotland. There are signs in this report that point to where that path might lie.

The first lies in answers to a question on policy-making. The public wants it to go slower and be done better, at a rate of 73 per cent of us. This is probably a reflection of the fact that it feels to the public like they are not involved in the debate over new policy, even as spectators, and so it feels like decisions are stitched up quickly in back rooms and then forced through.

That probably comes through in a 72 per cent preference for a leader that builds consensus rather than a 'strongman' who pushes things through. There is another hint about the path that might helps us. Levels of trust in key democratic institutions is worryingly low – but not random. The pattern is pretty clear – Westminster 3.4 our of 10, Holyrood 3.9, Local Authorities 4.1.

In addition to this the article reports that trust in community councils was even higher but does not provide a number (the dataset behind this does not appear to be published yet). The pattern there is not hard to detect; trust in institutions is low but rises the closer that institution is to where people live. Remote democracy is worse than local democracy.

This polling should be of deep concern. A democracy which has levels of trust as low as ours looks precarious and invites a major disruption, for good or ill. The people who gathered to 'save' our democracy from the far right are some of the least trusted in society. Pretending this is all OK is reckless.

The lesson politicians may take from this is to be more 'consensual' – take fewer risks, produce bland compromise, be less ambitious, sort it out between us. That was the lesson that this week's summit seemed to have absorbed. It sees the solution to our current problems in the past, where a small group of powerful politicians made deals amongst themselves and presented them to the public.

It is very far from clear that 'consensual' in this context means 'consensus among the political classes' given the low trust in them. There are very strong sings that the public means 'consensus across society', and the tendency to view local more positively certainly suggests at least some element of 'including me'.

It is possible to read this poll as 'close down, slow down, do less, be consensual, sort it out amongst yourselves'. That is almost certainly a mistake. It is more persuasive to read it as 'open out, get the process right, find real answers, bring more people into decision-making – and make decisions closer to me'.

If that is right, our political future is either a process of democratic reform involving more participatory democracy, less centralised governmental control, much more decentralised decision-making, less of public governance being backroom deals within political parties, and more responsiveness to public priorities.

Common Weal has set out details of exactly such a system in its book Sorted.