The Duffy effect on public trust

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/04/2015 (3296 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The consequences of political screw-ups could be significant. The danger when public officials gamble with their reputations is they may jeopardize the perceived integrity of the political process.

What the public thinks of our democratic political system is not immune from the conduct and actions of its front-line ambassadors. In fact, the amount of faith the public sinks into our political process is in large part a reflection of the way our political authorities and institutions perform.

It’s important to recognize public expectations of their political elites have developed over time. Citizens are not fools. Moreover, if politicians can demand citizens to be more prudent with public dollars, then it seems only fair citizens can expect the same from their trusted public officials. At the very least, we would hope political authorities would try their level best to lead by example, by being honest and ethical, and by using simple common sense when required.

Basic errors in judgment or bad decisions, such as deciding not to inquire further about vague or unclear expense procedures, particularly when it is public dollars at stake, are not likely to be as readily tolerated or easily fixed by simple public apologies or even by throwing the rascals out. In fact, our research suggests just a few bad apples, or temporarily suspended senators as the case may be, can have notable and damaging consequences on public outlooks toward the democratic political process. In addition, the collateral damage may be quite far-reaching.

The results of online surveys we conducted with more than 1,500 Quebecers in the spring of 2014, about five months after Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau were suspended from the Senate, suggest these three senators are the least-liked politicians in the province, with popularity ratings of no higher than 14 on scales that range from a low of zero to a high of 100. Even more concerning is what Quebecers think about these three individuals is linked to what they make of senators more generally. In other words, in today’s public life, the evidence shows the actions of a few can certainly affect the lot. And the consequences are not insignificant.

For example, our data suggest Quebecers who dislike Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau are much less likely to be satisfied with the performance of senators in general. They are also much less inclined to view senators as honest and ethical. They are more than 25 per cent less likely to rate senators positively on popularity scales. But perhaps most revealing is the finding suggests what Quebecers think about Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau is directly linked to how much faith they have in senators more broadly. That is, the more negative Quebecers are about the three suspended senators the less likely they are to express any confidence in senators more generally.

Furthermore, the collateral damage appears even more extensive than just that. Our evidence indicates people’s perceptions about Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau are also tied to how they feel about the Senate. For instance, Quebecers who dislike the three suspended senators are nearly 40 per cent less likely to evaluate the Senate as doing a good job, or to place any confidence in the Senate as an institution. Support for maintaining the upper chamber is certainly not likely to increase with representatives such as these.

What these findings clearly suggest is the choices these three individual politicians have made have implications for public opinion and for perceptions of senators and the Senate more broadly. Moreover, our evidence indicates the actions of public officials may also have important consequences on people’s perceptions of the workings of democracy overall. Consider for instance that Quebecers who have negative orientations toward Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau are far less likely to feel satisfied about the achievements and integrity of their political representatives. Also, Quebecers who dislike the three suspended senators are much less likely to feel satisfied with the workings of democracy at the federal level.

None of this bodes well for the perceived integrity of our political system. Nor is less faith in core government institutions and less satisfaction in the workings of our political system likely to entice disengaged Canadians back into the political process.

But then, what more did we expect from just a few bad apples?

 

Mebs Kanji is an associate professor in political science at Concordia University in Montreal. Kerry Tannahill is a PhD candidate in the department.