I WANT to make our readers and the general public aware of the Edelman Trust Index. This institution has been surveying “trust” of the people in their societal institutions in different countries believing that “it is the ultimate currency in the relationship that all institutions – companies and brands, governments, NGOs and media – build with their stakeholders. Trust defines an organization’s license to operate, lead and succeed.”
The 2022 Edelman Trust Index has some very surprising, if not startling, findings that is very instructive in some of the most vital questions related to ideology, politics and media today such as:
global general trust in business, NGOs, government and media; what political system is more trusted by the people – liberal-democratic-electoral or centralized (some call authoritarian) government; and, which media is more trusted – private free media or state media.
Here are the results: on trust for the different sectors, Business, 61; NGOs, 59; government, 52; media, 50. The most trusted governments are centralized (some call authoritarian) governments with China being most trusted at 91 points of its people;
UAE 87, Saudi Arabia 82, Thailand last among the positive trust rating at 60, while the liberal-electoral democratic government like the U.S is distrusted by 39 points, Japan by 36 percent and Brazil by 34 and Argentina at 22 percent, the last.
Trust in media is declining in 15 out of the 27 countries surveyed, but again the results are absolutely surprising.
The media audience of China has the highest increase of +10 points for 80 percent trust of its state-run media while the U.S is distrusted by 39 percent.
Others on the trusted range are Indonesia at 73 percent, India at 66 percent while among the lowest are France at negative 38, Japan at negative 35 the same as UK, and least trusted is Russia’s media. Here state-run and free-private media intermingle in the rankings.
The most succinct definition of democracy is often cited from U.S. President Abraham Lincoln’s “a government of, by, and for the people.”
To break this down further, to be a government “of” the people it must be one the people believe they own, to be “by” the people must feel they created it which by standard liberal-electoral definition is by the election of the government leaders, governors or rulers, and “for” to be in-the-service-of-people.
Using these criteria, the low trust countries such as the U.S. apparently do not possess these qualities while the high trust countries do.
If “trust,” as the Edelman Trust Index says “… defines an organization’s license to operate, lead and succeed,” China with 91 percent trust rating undoubtedly has the overwhelming “license” or consent of its population of 1.4-billion people to govern and lead the nation even without popular election of its leadership, while the U.S. government with such low trust rating despite its constant electoral exercises hardly claim to have the license or permission from its 330-million citizens to govern.
So, which system is “democratic?” Obviously, the old definitions normally used by the Western dictionaries are no longer applicable to the times as China presents another model of popular governance without the same mode of elections as the Wes, or, alternatively, with a model of its own that China has fashioned according to its national ideology and experience – proving truly more democratic and superior to what used to be called the “beacon of democracy” – the U.S.A.
It is now popular among politicians and pundits in the Philippines to reevaluate our Philippine political system. Candidate Ping Lacson and Business Mirror columnist Manny Dooc have recently proposed the return to the two-party system.
These two are out-of-date and should be given some updates on how Americans are now decrying the divisiveness of the Democrat-Republican polarization in America; they should be briefed on US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s’ prediction of American-style democracy collapsing within 10 years.
Filipinos need to reduce its politicking by reducing the layers of political structure such as eliminating the Senate and harmonize its multi-segmentized population with a multi-party parliamentary system. China with its cultural homogeneity and its 5,000-year civilization plus 100-years of cultural revolution in the 20th century has achieved a political maturity that makes the one-party state and Democratic Centralism most viable.
Europe has found it most agreeable political system in parliamentary democracy, but America, though still opulent is actually wracked by class war reflected in the extreme polarization between the Democrats and Republican that many Americans themselves see likely to come to a head in a Second American Revolution within the decade.
There is another relevant survey, the Democracy Index which has as its theme in 2021, “The Challenge of China.” We shall discuss this in our next column.
(Samahan si Ka Mentong Laurel at mga panauhin sa “Power Thinks” tuwing Miyerkules @6pm Live Global Talk News Radio (GTNR) sa Facebook at sa Talk News TV sa You Tube; at tuwing Linggo 8 to 10am sa RP1 738khz AM sa radyo).