Global Perspective: Overcoming 'crisis of trust' vital as hostility, division deepen
By Izumi Nakamitsu, U.N. Under-Secretary-General
Amid growing concerns worldwide about democracy in crisis, the findings of the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer survey were released in January during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, the survey -- conducted annually by public relations firm Edelman Inc. in the United States -- measures public trust in governments, corporations, media, and nongovernmental organizations across the world.
The survey's inception dates back to 1999, when large-scale demonstrations against globalization erupted in Seattle during the third World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting. The protests marked a historic watershed for civil society organizations and NGOs, amplifying their international decision-making. Initially designed to assess trust levels between governments, corporations and NGOs, the first results showed that NGOs were the most trusted globally.
Since then, the world has experienced tectonic shifts: the financial crisis of 2008, the rise of populism from around 2016, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Each of these crises has further shaken global stability.
The deep anger of have-nots
This year's Barometer, subtitled "Trust and the Crisis of Grievance," paints a stark picture: Trust in organizations in general, including governments and media outlets, continues to decline, with grievances especially high among low-income groups. Economic uncertainty, job insecurity and inequality -- exacerbated by globalization, recession, and accelerating rapid technological change -- are fanning resentment and grievances. And the gap between high- and low-income groups is widening regarding their trust in government and other organizations.
One of the report's most shocking findings: An average of 40% of people in the world and 35% in Japan view "hostile activism" as a valid means to drive change. Among adults aged 18-34, support for hostile activism accounts for 53% globally and 43% in Japan. Hostile activism includes online attacks, intentionally spreading disinformation, threats or manifestations of violence, and damaging public or private property. In fact, with rising online hostility in Japan, and events such as the Capitol riots in the U.S. in January 2021, the report warns that hostile activism is not rare anymore. It is becoming a phenomenon that can happen at any time.
Widespread pessimism about the future
The survey reveals that less than 1 in 5 people in many developed countries believe that "the next generation will be better off compared to today." In Japan, only 14% hold this view. The 2023-2024 United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report finds that 7 out of 10 people feel they have little influence on their government's decisions. The sense of hopelessness for the future, paired with distrust in democratic political processes, is fueling vicious cycles of further disengagement in the political system.
A "zero-sum" mindset -- where people assume that gains for the opposing group means losses for themselves -- coupled with misinformation and disinformation abounding on social networking sites further intensifies hostility and division among people. Populist resentment against the perceived economic elites stems from a reality where changes in the economic and industrial structures due to economic globalization benefit only a limited number of rich people, while their negative consequences remain largely unaddressed. Growing inequality and disparity erode social structures such as the family and community, which are key sources of people's sense of belonging.
The current crisis of trust can no longer be framed by the traditional political axis of the right and the left. Instead, solutions must consider the state of the society, the role of politics and policies regarding international cooperation -- especially amid geopolitical paradigm shifts -- and technological innovation that is advancing at a tremendous pace.
Domestic divisions and political polarization are directly interlinked with international cooperation and trust. "International cooperation" isn't limited to humanitarian and developmental assistance from developed to developing countries. It now extends to tackling a wide range of challenges vital to the stability and prosperity of the developed countries: responding to climate change, regulating artificial intelligence, and enhancing cooperation and norm promotion in security.
Failing to address the sources of instability in developing countries could trigger further confusion and large-scale population movements, exacerbating international instability. As such, disengaging from international cooperation is ultimately not beneficial to the national interests of any country in the world today.
The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals motto, "Leave no one behind," was adopted by the General Assembly in 2015, rooted in ethical and moral considerations based on international solidarity. The idea for humanity to prosper together is still an important principle, but now has taken a strategic dimension, as the survey reveals: Responding to popular grievances and restoring trust in political organizations has become critical to preventing large-scale destabilization of our global society.
The UN's unconventional call to action
In his September 2021 report titled "Our Common Agenda," United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized the need to rebuild trust by renewing the "social contract" -- the agreement between governments and their citizens that underpins legitimacy in governance and is binding for the stakeholders. He urged global leaders to listen to the voices of citizens and work together to envision the future.
The secretary-general's stance was unusual, as the world body normally avoids commenting on the internal affairs of member states in its reports, with the exception of major human rights violations. However, rebuilding trust can be perceived as an issue directly affecting world peace, given the big picture of global destabilization related to a crisis rooted in trust deficits in domestic political institutions fueled by people's grievances.
Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. Governments, businesses, the media, NGOs, and international organizations from all sectors -- including the U.N. itself -- need to commit to and collaborate on concrete efforts to rebuild trust. We must be held accountable when we fail to perform the functions the people expect, and work hard to reform ourselves. Domestic organizations must listen to the voices of citizens, engage in sincere dialogue, and work together to find a breakthrough. Responses such as, "We would like to withhold an answer to your question," as is often heard in political arenas in Japan and elsewhere, should be confined to the past. In an era of great change, rebuilding trust at all levels is the key to a better future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
40 minutes ago
- The Mainichi
Musk threatens to withdraw Dragon spacecraft, a key space station link for NASA
(AP) -- As President Donald Trump and Elon Musk argued on social media on Thursday, the world's richest man threatened to decommission a space capsule used to take astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. After Trump threatened to cut government contracts given to Musk's SpaceX rocket company and his Starlink internet satellite services, Musk responded via X that SpaceX "will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." It's unclear how serious Musk's threat was. But the capsule, developed with the help of government contracts, is an important part of keeping the space station running. NASA also relies heavily on SpaceX for other programs including launching science missions and, later this decade, returning astronauts to the surface of the moon. The Dragon capsule SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable right now of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. Boeing's Starliner capsule has flown astronauts only once; last year's test flight went so badly that the two NASA astronauts had to hitch a ride back to Earth via SpaceX in March, more than nine months after launching last June. Starliner remains grounded as NASA decides whether to go with another test flight with cargo, rather than a crew. SpaceX also uses a Dragon capsule for its own privately run missions. The next one of those is due to fly next week on a trip chartered by Axiom Space, a Houston company. Cargo versions of the Dragon capsule are also used to ferry food and other supplies to the orbiting lab. NASA's other option: Russia Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only other means of getting crews to the space station right now. The Soyuz capsules hold three people at a time. For now, each Soyuz launch carries two Russians and one NASA astronaut, and each SpaceX launch has one Russian on board under a barter system. That way, in an emergency requiring a capsule to return, there is always someone from the U.S. and Russian on board. With its first crew launch for NASA in 2020 -- the first orbital flight of a crew by a private company -- SpaceX enabled NASA to reduce its reliance on Russia for crew transport. The Russian flights had been costing the U.S. tens of millions of dollars per seat, for years. NASA has also used Russian spacecraft for cargo, along with U.S. contractor Northrup Grumman. SpaceX's other government launches The company has used its rockets to launch several science missions for NASA as well as military equipment. Last year, SpaceX also won a NASA contract to help bring the space station out of orbit when it is no longer usable. SpaceX's Starship mega rocket is what NASA has picked to get astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon, at least for the first two landing missions. Starship made its ninth test flight last week from Texas, but tumbled out of control and broke apart.
Asahi Shimbun
4 hours ago
- Asahi Shimbun
VOX POPULI: Government never faced up to lack of records on ‘Abenomasks'
Plaintiff Hiroshi Kamiwaki, middle, holds a sign proclaiming victory in a lawsuit against the government at the Osaka District Court on June 5. (Minami Endo) There's a Japanese expression, 'shokushogimi'—the sense of being fed up after overindulgence. By now, many in Japan are surely fed up with hearing about the 'Abenomask,' the government's much-maligned initiative under then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to distribute reusable cloth face masks to every household during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the enormous outlay of taxpayer funds, the masks failed to reach people when they were most needed, and vast quantities ended up in storage. Rarely has a government policy drawn such widespread ridicule and criticism. So how were these masks procured in the first place? On June 5, the Osaka District Court overturned the government's decision to withhold documents related to the contracting process. The court dismissed the government's assertion that 'no documents exist' as implausible. The government claimed that most interactions had been conducted 'orally,' without written records. That means contracts totaling 40 billion yen ($278 million) for 300 million masks—each differing by vendor—were arranged through verbal agreements alone. The notion strains credulity. Even if true, such an approach reveals a staggering level of administrative negligence. We saw a similar attitude among senior bureaucrats during the Moritomo Gakuen scandal, which involved the questionable sale of state-owned land to a private school operator with ties to Abe. Officials brazenly claimed that documents related to the land deal had been discarded and that virtually nothing was known. Such an outrageous excuse is so appalling that it leaves one speechless. It inevitably casts serious doubt on the credibility of those involved. In the case of the mask contracts, even emails that had supposedly been discarded were later unearthed during reinvestigation. As Ryunosuke Akutagawa (1892–1927), one of Japan's most influential writers, once observed with remarkable insight and precision, 'There are truths that can only be expressed through lies.' 'There was absolutely nothing wrong with it,' Abe maintained, defending the controversial policy and continuing to don the cloth masks. But the success or failure of a public policy is not determined by the policymaker—it is judged by the people. What, then, are the lessons to be drawn from the pandemic? If access to legitimate information is obstructed, it becomes impossible to scrutinize the historical responsibility of those who shaped critical decisions. Not long ago, I learned that a friend still had an Abenomask at home. Feeling a twinge of nostalgia, I asked to see it. The small mask, made of thick, coarse gauze, felt oddly familiar. When I held it to my face, it gave off a faint scent—reminiscent of 'warabanshi,' the rough, low-grade paper once commonly used in Japanese schools for handouts and practice sheets. —The Asahi Shimbun, June 6 * * * Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a popular daily column that takes up a wide range of topics, including culture, arts and social trends and developments. Written by veteran Asahi Shimbun writers, the column provides useful perspectives on and insights into contemporary Japan and its culture.
Yomiuri Shimbun
6 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
End of Cold War Spelled Trouble for Liberalism
The world is in great turmoil. In the war in Ukraine, which began in February 2022, the brutal fighting continues to drag on, and in the United States, the Trump administration is causing concern among its allies. So what will the international order look like going forward? Behind all this turmoil lurks an ideological climate that is critical of liberalism. In other words, the ideals of liberalism, which spread around the globe as universal ideals following the end of the Cold War, are now facing criticism and backlash around the world. In fact, criticism, dissatisfaction, anger and hostility toward liberalism have emerged as the driving force behind politics in some major countries. From Russian President Vladimir Putin's perspective, the spread of liberal and democratic thought and its arrival in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova is a national security threat to his country. This development can be seen as one side of a coin, the obverse side being an eastward expanding NATO and an expanding sphere of U.S. influence. At the same time, the United States, which has embodied liberalism since its founding, has seen its own steady uptick in critiques of such thinking. For instance, in his 2018 book 'Why Liberalism Failed,' Prof. Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame, whose philosophy is close to that of the Trump administration and is close to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, argued that liberalism 'has failed because it has succeeded.' Deneen predicted that in response to the anger and fear felt by the public following the collapse of liberalism, a populist nationalist dictatorship or a military dictatorship would be highly likely. After the end of the Cold War, paeans were made to the triumph of democracy and liberal economics over the communist system. As can be seen in Francis Fukuyama's 'The End of History?' essay, published in 1989, there was a growing utopian belief that foresaw the inevitable spread of liberalism around the world. However, history has not come to an end so easily. John Gray, a former professor at the London School of Economics, was one of the first scholars who warned against such optimistic thinking and criticized it, and he published many papers on the history of liberal thought. In his book 'False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism' — published in 1998, or 20 years before Deneen's own book critical of liberalism — Gray argued there was a rather strong possibility that the United States' laissez-faire economics would implode as emerging economic powers challenged its hegemonic place in the world economy. For 30 years after the end of the Cold War, we blindly believed in the utopian idea that liberal economics and democracy would expand across the world, and we have looked optimistically toward the future world order. But now we are faced with Russia's relentless aggression and violence against Ukraine. On top of that, we have witnessed the Trump administration pull back on international cooperation and challenge global norms time and time again. Lessons from history 'The Counter-Enlightenment' is an essay written by British political theorist Isaiah Berlin, who was one of the most renowned thinkers in the second half of the 20th century and lectured at the University of Oxford for many years. It provides a useful guide to the dynamics of world politics. In his essay, Berlin focuses on the spread of a backlash rooted in the culture, history and traditions of each region in response to the Enlightenment's rationalism and faith in science, which spread throughout Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. He warned that 'Cosmopolitanism is the shedding of all that makes one most human, most oneself.' This way of thinking prompted many to believe that the uniqueness and culture of each nation and region should be preserved. For instance, German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder, who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries, opposed the spread of Enlightenment ideals and acknowledged that 'There is a plurality of incommensurable cultures.' He maintained that 'To belong to a given community, to be connected with its members by indissoluble and impalpable ties of common language, historical memory, habit, tradition and feeling, is a basic human need.' Berlin also focused on French conservative thinkers such as the Catholic Joseph de Maistre. De Maistre 'held the Enlightenment to be one of the most foolish, as well as the most ruinous, forms of social thinking,' Berlin wrote, adding that, 'The conception of man as naturally disposed to benevolence, cooperation and peace, or, at any rate, capable of being shaped in this direction by appropriate education or legislation, is for [de Maistre] shallow and false.' De Maistre, according to Berlin, believed nature to be 'a field of unceasing slaughter' and that 'Men are by nature aggressive and destructive; they rebel over trifles.' Berlin saw the anti-Enlightenment movement in the 19th century as a reaction to the Enlightenment, and in the same way, we are now witnessing a reaction against the universalist, rationalistic liberalism of the post-Cold War period. Taking a bird's-eye view of the history of the past 150 years, a tendency appears that when you have the spread of utopianism based on the ideas of Enlightenment liberalism, there is a subsequent outburst of anti-Enlightenment thought or nationalism in reaction. Russia, the United States and China are all seeing criticism of liberalism and a rise of nationalism, and the same can be said for many European countries where far-right forces are on the rise. The anti-Enlightenment movement that began in the 19th century, the Romantic movement that defended each culture and tradition, and the rise of nationalism all culminated in World War I. Then, in the 1930s, the rise of fascism and Nazism as a critique of liberalism led to World War II. In our post-Cold War era, Russia is continuing a major war against Ukraine, but we are not yet in another world war. What we can do now is reconcile these two modes of thinking — the liberal international order that is based on free trade and democracy, the very foundations of the post-World War II international order, and the anti-Enlightenment thought critical of liberalism that is flaring up in the world's major countries. In his 1939 book 'The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939,' British historian E.H. Carr, who sought peace in the late 1930s, explored ways to optimally merge utopianism and realism. After the '30 years' crisis,' in which post-Cold War utopianism collapsed, the world remains plagued by crises, uncertainty and conflict. We must find a new balance. Yuichi Hosoya Yuichi Hosoya is a professor of international politics at Keio University and the author of numerous books on British, European and Japanese politics and foreign affairs, including 'Security Politics in Japan: Legislation for a New Security Environment.' The original article in Japanese appeared in the June 1 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
