Most human beings believe in anthropogenic climate change, and still the support for measurements introducing mitigation and adaptation like higher taxation for greenhouse gas intensive industries is low[1]. This seems rather ambivalent, seeing the increasing amount of people fighting against climate change on the streets. One aspect of this discrepancy is, that many societies have a major trust issue. Trust allows us to cooperate and enables us to conduct unified actions[2]. When people trust responsibility will be shared and individual abilities can be enhanced. If we trust, we do not fear, that another person will free ride on our actions[2]. Trust thereby is a bilateral agreement on a horizontal level[3]. To visualize this, one only has to think about friendships, family bonds, or even encounters with strangers on the street. Because we trust in the actions of the other, we are able to build this relationships in the first place, no matter if it is between a vendor and a costumer or if it is between two friends.
However, political trust is different. Political trust adds a vertical component to the equation[3]. This component, is based on the invisibility of the opposite to the politician/decision maker and thus adds a higher level of uncertainty in the relationship[3]. While citizens put trust in the politicians, they do not have the everyday encounter and therefore can not mirror the trust given to them. And this in the end is, why we fear taxes. If we do not trust, we are just not certain that introduced actions are necessary. However, it is proven, that if societies have a high level of trust towards politicians, the acceptance of actions, which in the first place sound unappealing, is higher[1]. And this level of acceptance is independent of the fact that people do or do not believe in climate change[1]. So in some ways it is not important how certain scientific models are, it is more important how certain we are, that our decision makers take decisions for the common good.
But how can and should politicians reduce the uncertainty in the relationship to citizens? How can they strengthen the trust?
How the discrepancy between horizontal and vertical trust relationships are related to these questions is illustrated by referring to the one on one encounters of politicians, especially with lobbyists. No matter what we think about them, it is really likely that they are definitely part of the problem due to two main aspects. First, lobbyists have a one on one relationship with politicians. Therefore, this superficial trust relationship is more dominant in the mind of decision makers. It is therefore important that decision makers reevaluate all their meetings and come back to the point where they see that the focus of their work is to find the best solution for all, not for a few. Second, the loudest lobbyists are the ones who normally have a short term loss due to climate change action[4]. And of course it is clear by now, that many actions which are necessary to act against climate change will have short term losers and will be connected to change. And change, is scary. However, if this change will lead to long term winners (all of us), decision makers have to show that they see that, and that they are willing to risk losing the approval of an old elite.
If decision makers keep this in mind, it will be easier to have an open communication about the decision process and the reasons for decisions and thus trust will be established.
But what are the consequences in a society of trust, if a certain measurement turns out to be bad (maybe due to uncertainties in scientific models or due to the overall uncertainty in a complex world)? I guess, society would forgive. As trust is established, the civil society would know that this was not on purpose and would know that the decision makers are keen on finding new solutions and thus further reduce the uncertainty in their intentions.
In this short text I do not want to say that the process is easy, but rather that societies are capable of renounce and adaptation to changes. We have to allow ourselves to think good about others and about their intentions. If decision makers then invest into a trust based relationship, the whole society can mirror this behavior and integrate it in their value set.
References:
[1] Malcolm Fairbrother, Ingemar Johansson Sevä, Joakim Kulin. Political trust and the relationship between climate change beliefs and support for fossil fuel taxes: Evidence from a survey of 23 European countries. Global Environmental Change. Volume 59. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102003.
[2] Sundblad E-L, Biel A, Gärling T. Knowledge and Confidence in Knowledge About Climate Change Among Experts, Journalists, Politicians, and Laypersons. Environment and Behavior. 2009;41(2):281-302. doi:10.1177/0013916508314998.
[3] Schnaudt C. (2019) The Concept of Political Confidence. In: Political Confidence and Democracy in Europe. Contributions to Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89432-4_2.
[4] Christian Stöcker. Uefa und Exon: Hört nicht auf die Verlierer. Der Spiegel.2021.07.04.Klimakriese. https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/uefa-und-oelkonzern-exxon-hoert-nicht-auf-die-verlierer-a-4437a4f5-b200-4864-9fe1-bb3fdbfbef60?sara_ecid=soci_upd_wbMbjhOSvViISjc8RPU89NcCvtlFcJ.
Dear Verena,
I really enjoyed reading your post finding it interesting to look at trust and uncertainties between politicians and the rest of the society, and would like to add some thoughts of my own.
Regarding your questions “How can and should politicians reduce the uncertainty in the relationship to citizens? How can they strengthen the trust?” I believe that the key component is the missing communication between the two mentioned parties. As you said, “in some ways it is not important how certain scientific models are, it is more important how certain we are, that our decision makers take decisions for the common good” which also implies that the important aspect is our trust in the decision makers. If there were to be more communication between politicians and society, such as more frequent and more accessible town hall meetings and press conferences, as well as an increased communication through traditional and modern media, increased levels of trust would be built among the two parties. In my opinion, it would be of much benefit for the considered relationship, if politicians and decision makers would show that they listen to their society by, for example, addressing raised issues more often.
Going back to your example regarding the “fear of taxes”, I believe that with a more open communication taxes would be much more accepted. For example, if we look at the carbon tax, the citizens would (probably) be less bothered by the increase in gas prices if they would be aware of how the tax money is being reinvested. If the tax-payer knows that this money is, for example, used to enable the coal phase-out to actively mitigate climate change, he is much more likely to have a better view on it rather than if, in his eyes, gas was “just” getting more expensive.
Lastly, I wanted to comment on where you talk about the “society of trust” being forgiving when a measure taken by decision-makers turns out to be a mistake. Of course, in an ideal “society of trust” false decision can and may be forgiven, however in a more realistic society as seen today false decisions could rather raise disapproval and distrust. I would like to use an aspect of the Corona-Pandemic in Germany as an example for this. The German society generally shows a lot of trust in Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and in the fact that she makes good decisions for her country. During the pandemic this trust in her was very much challenged: schools have been closed for a very long period of time even when it was recognized that they were not a major issue in the spreading of the virus. Open-plan offices, however, stayed open for a large portion of time even during lockdowns, although they were shown to be a major area of infection. Having the children suffer from home-schooling but not implementing the home-office obligation has then raised a strong distrust in the chancellor, although she just tried to make the best decisions in a time of high uncertainty.
I believe that the “society of trust” is a nice idealization, however I also think that it involves too many actors to fully function. Especially when mistakes are being made in decisions involving entire nations or more, there will probably always be a significant portion of society that will not accept that also politicians can make mistakes and that will not trust that they intended to act to the best of their abilities.