The article reveals distrust impacts political trust in democracy, suggesting implications for public discourse and voter behavior.
Today’s crises of democracy and the corresponding rise of autocracies are often connected to a lack of trust. This article argues first that distrust also has many legitimate places in democracies, but that, ultimately democracies do indeed require a certain basic political trust: one needs to assume that one’s fellow citizens are committed to democracy as an ongoing project of free and equal people; they need to be “reasonable” in the Rawlsian sense. That basic trust can be betrayed when particular citizens vote aspiring autocrats into office. Under such circumstances, there is a special burden on these citizens to disavow at least the policies that could further autocratization. Arguments in public discourse have very often suggested the exact opposite: liberals must show empathy with the voters of authoritarian populist parties. The article then briefly considers two other possibilities of increasing political trust: militant democracy and open voting; the former is in many ways fraught with danger, though not per se illegitimate, as a response to crises of political trust; the latter ought to be rejected outright.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jan‐Werner Müller (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: