Toespraak minister Donner op Asset-conferentie The Economics of Trust in Tilburg op 25 september 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen,
You have come here to listen to Minister Donner; and here I am. It doesn’t surprise you, and why should it? I was scheduled to speak – and therefore expected to speak. In a similar way you expected this conference to beheld, just as you will expect your coat to be returned to you from the cloakroom at the end of the day. We consider this to be normal; and so it should be.
It is proof that in our society trust in other people is still normal. But it ain’t necessarily so. There are societies in which we would not have started on time, in which you would now be listening to someone other than the scheduled speaker and in which you might well have cause to wonder whether you will receive your own coat back from the cloakroom. I understand, however, that this will be precisely the case with some speakers that were scheduled to speak. So we are half way in our society. Suppose that you continually had to ask yourself whether what is said and written is actually correct. Suppose that you had to check everything or to allow for the fact that events could start much earlier or much later than announced.
Trust is the lubricant of society. We live together in freedom, but trust and trustworthiness are what make this freedom liveable. Trust enables us to enter into and build on relationships with other people. In every form of society or relationship we are reliant on one another, but even in the closest relationship – that of marriage – the participants remain two separate individuals, each with his or her own views, perceptions and actions. Only through trust – and its counterpart trustworthiness – is it possible for two autonomous beings to live and work together on a lasting basis.
Everyone is in favour of trust, just as everyone is in favour of happiness and in favour of health and justice. You never hear a politician denouncing trust. Although, now that I come to think of it, Mrs Kroes may possibly do so later on; after all, she’s ‘antitrust’!
So everyone is in favour of trust; living together without it, is unworkable. Nonetheless, we have developed numerous mechanisms intended to reinforce trust and trustworthiness: the law, custom, social control. ‘Trust is good,’ said Vladimir Lenin, ‘but control is better.’ “The better natured, the sooner undone”, as the saying goes. In other words, blind trust can cost you dearly. To live together we also need a healthy dose of mistrust. Although we admittedly do not wish to have to check every text, to consider the printed word as the ultimate truth is rather naive. Accepting every sales pitch as gospel truth is short-sighted. Anyone who believes every newspaper report is likely to end up feeling deceived.
This does not alter the fact that living together and working together requires an element of mutual trust. Otherwise, we would continually find ourselves caught up in prisoner’s dilemma’s. Life would be hardly liveable – and infinitely more expensive – if we had to doubt everything and everyone; if we could not commit ourselves to anyone, and if every agreement had to be confirmed in a legally binding contract or had to be economically insured. The more we trust each other, the better we can cooperate and rely on things to happen. Trust is ultimately prosperity. What better proof of this could there be than the fact that Fukuyama’s book ‘Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity’ was given the title ‘Welvaart’ (prosperity) in Dutch.
You could not have chosen a better time for a conference on the role of trust in society. For weeks now we have been treated to a master class in what this means. The present lack of trust is causing billions of dollars in the world economy to evaporate. Within just a few months it has led to the disappearance of an entire sector – the investment banks. It has even brought the American and British governments to espouse almost socialist principles by intervening in the economy in order to restore trust. After all, a lack of trust undermines the very basis of the modern economy. Credit is merely the tangible expression of this. This is why the credit crisis is more than just a financial problem; it saps the basis of our form of free society.
Trust in society is no less important. As far as this is concerned, we are living in strange times. The Netherlands is described as a ‘high trust’ society, examples of which I have already given. This is also evident from the fuss we make when something goes wrong or not according to plan. After all, you complain only if you are entitled to assume that things won’t go wrong or not according to plan.
But despite all our personal good fortune and our trust in one another, we are still concerned about society and what should be done about it. It is a feeling of ‘things are going well for me, things are going badly for us’. In the course of a century we have exchanged optimism about progress, for pessimism. Our great grandparents toiled all their lives so that their children would be better off; they knew that things would otherwise not improve. Our parents toiled to improve their lot because they believed that their children would be better off. We toil throughout our lives to offer our children the same, because we fear that otherwise everything will deteriorate. We mistrust a social system that has brought us unparalleled health, prosperity and opportunities.
Pessimism about the future points to a lack of confidence in our capacity to do something about the developments we see. Confidence in ourselves, in our collective capacity to tackle and solve social problems, is determined in part by the confidence we have in government; we have, after all, trusted it with this responsibility. From this perspective it is understandable that we have rather less confidence in the future. Each day we are deluged with reports of what is going or may go wrong. Indeed, we have in many ways institutionalised these negative perceptions: for example, in the form of supervisory bodies such as the courts, the national audit office and the ombudsman, in the form of inspectorates, advisory bodies and committees, and in the form of scientific study and articles. These pour forth an unending stream of reports and articles whose basic message is that things are going wrong, that things should be done better, that things must be done differently.
The manner in which we conduct politics also contributes to these perceptions. This is demonstrated by last week’s parliamentary debate on the Speech from the Throne. If one goes by what was said by the opposition, there was not much salvation in the government’s policy. The entire opposition referred to opinion polls showing that the general public have little confidence in the government. So one might have concluded that the mood would have been right for the motion of no confidence proposed by Mr Wilders. But, in the event, he only obtained the support of his own parliamentary party. It is confusing for the public at large.
As a factor contributing to the climate of low confidence in the government, the opinion polls are in a class of their own. RTL Nieuws reported last week that 70 % of the population have little confidence in the cabinet. The government as a whole scored 5 out of 10. According to EénVandaag this figure was even lower. At first sight a damning indictment. But what do these polls measure? The question in one poll was: ‘How much confidence do you have as a whole in the Balkenende cabinet?’ Another asked: ‘How much confidence do you have at the moment in the government?’ And yet another asked: ‘Tell me whether you are inclined to trust or not to trust each of the following institutions.’ And this was followed by a list including the government and the House of Representatives.
What does someone who answers these questions in the negative actually wish to say: that they consider the government ministers to be untrustworthy, that they have little trust in government policy or that they have no trust in the government, democracy and the rule of law? Trust and confidence are measured, but trust and confidence in whom or what?
I realise that I have to watch what I say. I must not shoot the messenger and must certainly not come across as a member of the Establishment who closes his ears to the people’s message: ‘We’re dissatisfied!’. This is why I prefer to leave it to the experts, Messrs Dekker and Van der Meer, who have carried out research into political confidence for the Social and Cultural Planning Office. I quote from the Journal for the Social Sector, 2004: ‘We have not presented any questions about actual relationships of trust, let alone inquired about specific experience of the reliability of institutions. Answers to questions about confidence in politics will be a combination of the respondent’s own feelings and judgments about politicians and policy, spiced with a sense of the prevailing social climate. As regards the latter, reports in the media based on previous polls will also play a role. And this tends to produce a merry-go-round of waning confidence and increasing dissatisfaction and discontent. This may be somewhat fictitious, but the resulting negative public opinion is a fact.’ End of quote.
That seems clear to me. It explains why the Prime Minister (Mr Balkenende) and the Minister of Finance (Mr Bos) can at the same time be among the five most trusted and the five least trusted ministers. According to the opinion polls on Budget Day, Balkenende ranked first and Bos fourth on the list of most trusted ministers and Bos first and Balkenende third on the list of least trusted ministers.
Given the Dutch political system and the questions asked in opinion polls, it would be a miracle if a coalition were to ever gain a confidence rating of over 50%. By definition, every voter trusts the party and the party leader for whom he has voted and has little confidence in the others. For example, a CDA voter has trust in Balkenende and a PvdA voter in Bos. As no party ever gets a majority in the Netherlands, none of the party leaders can win the trust of the majority of the population. This also means that two or more parties must always conclude a coalition accord in which each of them makes concessions on its election programme and election promises. Each of the party leaders is therefore bound to slip in the trust ratings by entering into a coalition; only those who go into opposition can show an unblemished record.
A simple calculation shows that at the last election almost half of the voters voted for and placed their trust in the VVD, the SP, the PVV and other opposition parties. They are therefore hardly likely to express confidence in a government consisting of CDA, PvdA and ChristenUnie. What’s more, the opinion pollsters also ask the views of people who have not voted, and a good many of them have no confidence in politics. So I could make a calculation showing in advance that almost two out of three people can be expected to express little confidence in a government.
In view of the questions that are generally asked, a coalition government in the Netherlands can count itself fortunate to get a satisfaction rating of 50% in the polls. Things may possibly be different in a crisis or in wartime, when political differences are set aside and people unite behind the government, but in normal circumstances it is unlikely that everyone will have every confidence in a government. And this is indeed a good thing: only unreliable dictators score percentages of 100% and more. In a society in which interests clash, compromises will have to be concluded and the government will have to weigh up conflicting interests. A government that wants to satisfy everyone and can take decisions only if no one is dissatisfied would be guilty of doing things by halves. Or, as the saying goes, a tender surgeon makes a foul wound. Such a government cannot be trusted with the governance of the country. Likewise, a politician who measures his trustworthiness only by reference to his election programme and promises, is not trustworthy in a coalition system.
Trust has a hidden meaning when it is applied to the government or the authorities in general, because trust concerns an outcome; something that is accomplished or done. However, democratic authorities derive their legitimacy not from the output but from the input: the manner of election, the lawfulness of decisions and parliamentary assent. Trust presupposes a personal tie, presupposes loyalty: the involvement and the will to live up to expectations. But no politician will ever be able to meet all the expectations of all those who have voted for him, and his efforts should instead be directed to serving the public interest, not the specific interests of his supporters. Trust also presupposes realistic expectations. One may hope for the impossible and even believe in it, but one may not trust in it.
Politics and government do not fulfil any of these presumptions of trust. What is gauged in opinion polls is not trust in people, but trust in some vague notion comprising a mix of the government, the House of Representatives and the political parties. This is the conclusion of Will Tiemeijer, who obtained a doctorate here two years ago on the basis of a dissertation on the role and significance of opinion research in representative democracy (* ‘The secret of the citizen; about the State and opinion research’, 2006). He writes: ‘When it comes to trust in government, parliament or political parties, most people seem to be holists. They do not draw a sharp distinction between these political players, but instead look at the overall picture and form their opinions on the basis of their general feeling about how the Netherlands is faring. All in all, it is very doubtful whether their judgments say much about the actual performance of the government.’ End of quote. In other words, SP voters have no confidence in the government because it does not do what the SP has promised, which is hardly surprising since the SP is not in the government.
Tiemeijer wonders whether the question of trust and confidence should even be put. I quote again: ‘What would go wrong if we did not have this information? Not much probably .... [But] should confidence in the government continually be gauged? The democratic rule is that a government has four years in which to try to do the job, at the end of which it is judged on its performance. And if it really makes a hash of things, it can be sent packing earlier. Given these rules, in whose interests is it to have constant assessments of confidence in the government? It could even be argued that this is harmful. An unending stream of low scores could induce a government to engage in ill-considered acts designed to show its ‘vigour’ or to confine itself to doing what is popular with the majority. These are not always the measures that are best for the country.’ End of quote.
One could even ask whether constant opinion polls are not in the end harmful to both democracy and society? Government of course has to listen to the opinions, complaints and criticism of the population. But opinion polls on the satisfaction are not informative in this respect. They undermine confidence in the government, parliament and the authorities in general. This is a cause for concern. It can corrode the foundation of democracy. Because as this trust disappears, so does trust in our capacity to resolve problems collectively. Poverty, violence and trouble then tend to become seen as inevitable; the ‘game’ of blind social forces and the ‘hidden hand’ of the market are then quickly dubbed natural and inevitable. And in the long term our trust in the future also vanishes. People then turn to politicians who promise instant solutions and tell them what they want to hear. The accusation is then that trust is diminishing because politicians do not listen to the public. But is that the problem? Because if politicians were to make decisions only after listening to everyone’s wishes, it is still virtually certain that they would not satisfy them all. This strengthens people’s feeling: ‘they’re not doing what I want, they haven't listened to me!’
Despite all the criticism, reproaches and mistrust there is one blessing: the criticism, complaints and reproaches are based on assumptions of how things should be and therefore reinforce an idealised picture of government. Criticism presumes quality, an allegation of an abuse presumes that it can be rectified; a failing is something that can be made good. We sometimes complain that good news is no news, but woe betide a country where the news is that something has gone well; woe betide authorities where the news is that they are doing what is expected of them. So if we complain about the errors and mistakes of government, this is based on an assumption that government does not make mistakes and functions well. In short, a situation in which nothing goes wrong. Criticism, complaints and reproaches reinforce an idealised picture of government. We like to believe in government. Most people identify with government. Criticism of government is therefore also criticism of ourselves, but this is why we also wish to believe that government should know better, must do better and must be better.
This perhaps explains the strange phenomenon that Dutch people have high confidence in their form of government, notwithstanding their low confidence in the government and the authorities in general. Tiemeijer observes: ‘Fortunately, there is little reason for concern. Over 90% of Dutch people endorse the proposition that “A democracy has many problems, but it is the best form of government there is”. In the Eurobarometer (European opinion research surveys) people are regularly asked whether or not they are satisfied with the manner in which democracy functions in their country. After rising and falling at certain points the number of people replying in the affirmative has increased in the Netherlands from over 50% in 1973 to over 70% in 2006. In addition, the Netherlands is among the highest scoring countries in the world when it comes to general cultural values that are conducive to a sound democracy. (* What 93.7 percent of Dutch people should know about opinion polls’, 2008).
‘The waning trust in the traditional actors in a democratic system such as government, parliament and political parties is therefore presumably due not to their (allegedly) poor performance but to rising expectations and an increasingly critical attitude towards authority. Perhaps criticism of the traditional political players is growing precisely because democracy is increasingly supported as an ideal. The greater the importance people attach to the ideal, the more frustrating it is when reality fails to live up to expectations.’ End of quote
Ladies and gentlemen,
In order to trust government we must have a realistic picture of what government is and what may be expected of it. As I said previously, one may hope for the impossible and even believe in it, but one may not trust in it. This also means that we should not level unlimited criticism at government from an idealised perspective. We can criticise government only on the basis of realistic expectations. Government is not superman and its purpose is not to create a paradise.
I once quoted Abel Herzberg on the subject of the Prophet Isaiah and his prophecy about ‘The wolf shall dwell with the lamb …’. He lamented: ‘It’s such a terrible pity that not only the lamb had to agree to this …’ and went on ‘since [the prophecy] came to us we have realised that this ideal, however elevated, was always the ideal of the lamb, and that the wolf always harboured other intentions.’
Government does not exist to create paradise and to compel the wolf to dwell peacefully with the lamb. It exists precisely because the lamb and the wolf cannot resolve matters between them. Where we can resolve things by mutual agreement we do not need government. Government exists because we indeed know that the wolf’s intentions differ from those of the lamb. Therefore, bearing in mind reality, we must give government the benefit of the doubt. Because it is ultimately about trust in ourselves and in our future as a society. In that respect we get the government we deserve.
Let me conclude with one of the oldest forms of opinion research known to man: applause. I am not asking you to agree with what the speaker has said, but to make clear by applause whether you agree with the following proposition. If you agree, please clap. If you disagree, do not clap. And if you have no opinion, just shrug your shoulders. I hope for applause because the proposition is about trust, namely ‘However much people may grumble, Dutch democracy and government deserve our trust.’
Thank you.