Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:32:58.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trust, Distrust and Consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Geraint Parry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If there is a consensus on ‘consensus’ amongst political scientists it is that it occurs where there is a high degree of ‘trust’ amongst members of a political system. It may not always be clear whether such trust must be found amongst the citizens at large or only amongst the elite or between citizens and elite. Nor is it always certain whether ‘trust’ is a condition for consensual politics or an aspect of it. Nevertheless ‘trust’ would appear essential in a liberal democracy or a polyarchy. The section on ‘Trust’ in Robert A. Dahl's Polyarchy is indicative of this current concern. He argues that ‘mutual trust favors polyarchy and public contestation while extreme distrust favors hegemony’. This is for three reasons. Firstly, the mutual communication required in a polyarchy best occurs where men trust one another. Secondly, men need to trust one another if they are to associate together in the achievement of those objectives which they cannot gain by their own individual action. Thirdly, a feeling of trust prevents political disputes from turning into severe enmity.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 129 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dahl, R. A., Polyarchy (New Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971), pp. 150–2.Google Scholar

2 LaPalombara, Joseph, ‘Italy: Fragmentation, Isolation, and Alienation’, in Pye, L. and Verba, S., eds., Political Culture and Political Development (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1965). pp. 282–329Google Scholar; Rose, R., Politics in England (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown, 1964).Google Scholar

3 Rose, 's later study Politics in England Today (London: Faber, 1974)Google Scholar appears to place rather less emphasis on the pervasive character of trust but does refer to such a sense amongst members of the civil service, p. 112.

4 § 124. All references are to the edition by Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).

5 Hart, H. L. A.. The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 89–96.Google Scholar

6 In the excellent chapter on ‘Political Trusteeship’ in John Locke's Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950, 2nd edn., 1973).Google Scholar

7 See Kendall, W., John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule (Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 1965)Google Scholar, first published in Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, XXVI (1941).Google Scholar

8 In Pye, and Verba, , Political Culture, p. 96.Google Scholar

9 ‘Introduction’ to Pye, and Verba, , Political Culture, p. 22.Google Scholar

10 ‘Conclusion’ to Pye, and Verba, . Political Culture, p. 535.Google Scholar

11 Pye, and Verba, , Political Culture, pp. 23–4.Google Scholar

12 Almond, G. A. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture (Boston and Toronto: Little. Brown, 1965), p. 213, Table IX. 2.Google Scholar

13 Almond, and Verba, . The Civic Culture, p. 228.Google Scholar

14 Almond, and Verba, . The Civic Culture, pp. 232–43.Google Scholar

15 Nordlinger, Eric, The Working Class Tories (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1967), p. 223 and Chap. 9, passim.Google Scholar

16 McClosky, Herbert, ‘Consensus and Ideology in American Polities’, American Political Science Review, LVIII (1964), 361–81, esp. pp. 369–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Citrin, J., McClosky, Herbert, Shanks, J. Merrill and Sniderman, Paul M., ‘Personal and Political Sources of Political Alienation’. British Journal of Political Science, V (1975), 1–31, P. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 See further Parry, G., Political Elites (London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), pp. 90–4Google Scholar and Prewitt, K. and Stone, A., The Ruling Elites (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), pp. 148–58.Google Scholar

19 Lijphart, A., ‘Consociational Democracy’, World Politics, XXIII (1970–1971), 207–25.Google Scholar

20 Rose, R., Governing without Consensus (London: Faber, 1971), p. 349.Google Scholar See also Lijphart, 's review article: ‘The Northern Ireland Problem: Cases, Theories and Solutions’, British Journal of Political Science, V (1975). 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 This is an instance of a general point made by Barry, Brian in Sociologists, Economists and Democracy (London: Collier-Macmillan. 1970), esp. pp. 50–2.Google Scholar

22 A Letter on Toleration, eds. Klibansky, R. and Gough, J. W. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1968). p. 125.Google Scholar

23 ‘Of the Independency of Parliament’, Essays, Moral, Political and Literary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 42.Google Scholar

24 A Treatise of Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), Vol. III, Pt. II, sect. 7.Google Scholar

25 The Federalist (Oxford: Blackwell. 1948), X.Google Scholar

26 An Essay on Government (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1955), esp. Chap. VII.Google Scholar

27 Presthus, Robert, Elites in the Policy Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), PP. 360–2.Google Scholar

28 In many surveys the questions are adapted from a ‘faith in people’ scale devised by Rosenberg, M., ‘Misanthropy and Political Ideology’, American Sociological Review, XXI (1956), 690–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Miller, Arthur H., ‘Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970’, American Political Science Review, LXVIII, 1974, pp. 951–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCitrin, Jack's shrewd ‘Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government’ in the same issue (pp. 973–88)Google Scholar touches on some of the issues raised here but tends, despite citing Lincoln and John Stuart Mill, to see distrust as symbolic rather than instrumental. See also Miller, 's ‘Rejoinder’, pp. 989–1001.Google Scholar

30 ‘Nature and Convention’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., LX (1959–1960), 231–52.Google Scholar

31 Winch, , ‘Nature and Convention’, p. 250.Google Scholar

32 McClosky, , ‘Consensus and Ideology’, p. 377.Google Scholar

33 For a further discussion of such justifications see Parry, G.. ‘Participation and political styles’, in Chapman, B. and Potter, A., eds., W.J.M.M.: Political Questions: Essays in Honour of W. J. M. Mackenzie (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1974), pp. 190–204.Google Scholar

34 See Smith, B. and Hague, D., The Dilemma of Accountability in Modern Government (London: Macmillan. 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 For a strong statement of this position see Lowi, T.. The End of Liberalism (New York: Norton, 1969).Google Scholar