Trust and confidence in public office-holders and institutions are important for the functioning of modern democracies. This is particularly true in the case of elected office-holders and people appointed to head important organisations.  People need to be able to rely on the processes by which they are administered and governed. In the absence of trust in their basic integrity, public institutions lack legitimacy. That weakens their capacity to command compliance in areas such as public order, taxation and health and safety. Transactions between individual citizens and the state become much more difficult, and social cohesion may come under threat.

 No one can seriously argue that we have reached such a position in Malta. Compared to many other countries, our public institutions possess a high degree of integrity. Moreover, a degree of scepticism on the part of the public towards its representatives may be healthy for democracy. But the decline in public confidence in some of our public office-holders and institutions in recent years has been both marked and worrying.

GfK Custom Research published findings from an international survey in June 2011 which showed that the percentage of respondents expressing trust in politicians as a professional group ranged from eight per cent in Romania and the Czech Republic to 39 per cent in Sweden compared with 14 per cent in the UK.

 Increasing public confidence is not easy. Trust may be inconsistent even in a single relationship. A patient might trust their doctor to make the right diagnosis but not to provide the best value for money service, or to maintain confidentiality. Moreover, while it may be possible to identify characteristics that make an individual or organisation more or less trustworthy, public confidence may be affected by a range of external factors over which the individual or organisation may have little control.

 In addition, people can often feel a particular sense of trust in someone with whom they identify, even beyond the point where that trust is justified. We tend to trust the leader of “my community” but not the leader of “the other” community. Individuals with whom we feel a sense of identification inspire more trust than a more amorphous group, especially one that includes people we positively do not like. So, for example, constituents will express trust in their own MP, but make it clear that he is different from “politicians as a whole”, whom they do not trust.

To judge whether someone is worthy of their confidence, people need information about their behaviour. ?In some circumstances the information can be gained through first-hand experience. Where this is unavailable, people are likely to rely on the reported experience of people they know, including colleagues, family and friends. If this is absent it is more likely that views will be formed on the basis of other third party sources of information including the media. It appears that the greater the distance between an individual and the relevant person or institution, the harder it is for them to form a strong perception of trust.

 Logically, a key factor affecting whether someone is perceived to be trustworthy must be others’ perceptions of their behaviour, and crucially, whether this meets expected standards. Where institutions are concerned, trustworthiness relates not only to the behaviour of their members but also to the assurance they provide about their mechanisms for ensuring the fairness of their decision making processes, their treatment of individuals as equal members of the community, and their ability to show that behaviour is of a high standard, and will be dealt with if it falls short of expectations.

 Behaviour is more important than statements about behaviour or beliefs. So, for example, it may be helpful in some ways for a hospital to list its core values on the wall of reception so that patients see them as they enter; but in judging ethical standards patients are likely to give more weight to their experience of the behaviour of individual clinicians and other staff. Correspondingly, published information about a hospital’s assurance procedures is likely to carry less weight than the speed and efficiency with which the hospital detects and deals with poorly performing members of staff.

A second factor is the consistency or reliability of behaviour an individual or institution displays. Single transgressions can damage the public’s trust in an individual, and an individual’s bad behaviour can damage the trust placed in the institution to which they belong. The effect can be magnified if the media exaggerate the extent of a transgression.

A third factor affecting perceptions of trustworthiness is accountability. An individual who is willing to account for their actions is generally seen as more trustworthy than one who is reluctant to do so. However, accountability needs to be used intelligently as it can also have a detrimental effect.

Intelligent accountability may be easier to talk about than to achieve, but implies:  putting out good information in intelligible and adaptable formats, not just data; ?creating a genuine dialogue with stakeholders (including the media); ?building up a degree of trust over time that creates a virtuous feedback loop in which stakeholders can see policies being influenced and changed as a result of their input; and ?being open, particularly in relation to reporting problems to avoid a culture of blame.

 An individual or organisation, which is perceived to be open with information about its beliefs and actions, is more likely to be seen as trustworthy than one which resists disclosing information.

Transparency can, however, have some perverse effects. The Justice Select Committee’s post-legislative review of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in the United Kingdom concluded that while the greater access to public information, which the Act provided, had led to an increase in accountability, there had been no corresponding increase in public trust in public authorities.

Judgements about where to place confidence are not based only on direct experience. They are mediated by perceptions shaped by a number of factors. Some of the key ones are as follows:

? The media: The prospect of seeing their actions reported –?or mis-reported – in the media can discourage public office-holders from sensible risk-taking, innovation or brave decision making. The rise of social media has created an additional class of commentators who may not adhere to the same standards of proof to which professional journalists would. ?Despite the risk that actual or potential media coverage can have a negative impact, the Committee is very mindful of the important positive role that the media can play in promoting high ethical standards in public organisations. The media act as the main vehicle through which openness and transparency are made meaningful to the general public and, in some cases, escalate issues onto political agendas at local and national levels.

? Political culture: The nature of politics in Malta is likely to affect people’s perceptions of the trustworthiness of those involved in the political arena. Constant attacks on the integrity and effectiveness of one side of the political spectrum by the other make it difficult for the public to have confidence in any politician.

?Legal framework: Laws and regulations can also affect public perceptions of the trustworthiness of institutions. In particular, regulators may be inhibited by data protection or other considerations from revealing the full extent of their activities, which might make it appear that they are less proactive than they are in reality. The Freedom of Information Act in many countries has been used by journalists and private citizens to force organisations to reveal information which was not previously in the public domain. Both the information revealed and the fact that it had not previously been released proactively may reduce the perceived trustworthiness of the organisation in question. ?

There are three obvious ways in which public institutions and office-holders can and should influence levels of public confidence.

They should seek to improve their own trustworthiness. They should consistently and reliably demonstrate high standards of ethical behaviour, openness and accountability, and recognise that even small lapses can have a disproportionately damaging effect.

They should establish and promulgate (or as individuals, sign up to) robust mechanisms for detecting and dealing with wrongdoing. When problems are identified they should be acknowledged and appropriate mechanisms should be employed to deal with them rapidly, openly, fairly and effectively.

They should work constantly to increase public understanding of their role and work. The public might find it easier to trust public office-holders if they understood more about their roles.

As a conclusion, public office-holders and organisations should seek to improve their own trustworthiness by consistently and reliably exemplifying high standards of ethical behaviour, openness and accountability and establishing and promulgating robust mechanisms for detecting and dealing with wrongdoing. They should endeavour to increase public understanding of their role and work and should aim to create a culture which harnesses the power of the media to promote high standards and deter or expose misconduct.