Trust is superior to knowledge
Salute,
If only people knew and understood more about politics, they would be less likely to vote for populist and radical parties.
I often read this sentence. But is it true?
Two things bother me about it.
First, the statement is potentially presumptuous. If only one group became more informed about something, their opinions would become more like those of the others. As if everything was just a question of the "correct" information. The possibility that it could also be the other way around, that one could come closer to the opinion of others upon closer inspection, is not taken into account. Such an attitude doesn't get us any closer.
Second, when it comes to whom people vote for, we tend to overvalue pure information. We demand more information, but almost every level of information is unsatisfactory. Some just know less than others. We can’t get the whole picture of everything. It is precisely the essence of parliamentary democracy that we delegate decision-making to professionals because individual citizens cannot get a comprehensive picture of all issues on their own. If possible, direct democracy without parliament would be the better form of society. But if we cannot know, we must trust. We have to get a basic understanding of people, organizations, and institutions and based on this, we must trust parties and politicians in their actions and that they act in our interests.
What does this mean for our topic of "strengthening democracy"?
Yes, information and education are important, but if democrats want to strengthen democracy, they have to build trust. The best way to do this is through rigour, by sticking to what has been said and thereby fulfilling expectations. If it worked in the past, it will work in the future. This is how politicians are re-elected and how democratic institutions are trusted. If democracy creates security, prosperity and freedom, people will want to hold on to it.
✊,
Johannes Eber