Open Government Partnership

A conversation with Sarah Davidson on trust and the First Minister’s Democracy Gathering

August 7, 2025 by Open Government Team No Comments | Category Uncategorized

Sarah Davidson, Chief Executive of Carnegie UK, spoke on the importance of trust in politics and institutions to an audience of civil society representatives, faith leaders, trade unions, and politicians at the First Minister’s democracy gathering in April. This event saw a commitment to taking action to safeguard Scotland’s democracy.

We had a chance to catch up with Sarah a couple of months after the event to find out her thoughts on the discussion and the questions that have stuck with her. 

Read the full conversation below. 

Now that you’ve had some time to reflect, what are your thoughts on the gathering?

It was a much more reflective conversation than some of the accompanying media commentary might have suggested. There were people in the room with deep and wide experience of working to build trust between individuals, communities, and institutions and they were able to speak very eloquently to the complexity and nuance of that work. Many of us urged appropriate caution in speaking for those not there. So overall it felt like quite a self-aware audience, thoughtful about what we are seeing now and what that might mean for the future.

It was good to hear the wide recognition that there is no quick fix to issues of:

• equality and inclusion
• disinformation
• trust in politics
• public participation

Of course, if there was one silver bullet we wouldn’t need to get together and wrestle with these issues.  However, there are some things we know about that would make a difference – for example, to help rebuild trust in institutions. We know that partly because of the experience of people in the room, but also thanks to local and international evidence about what works.

I left the event not knowing whether to be encouraged by the existence of that evidence or deflated at the reminder that we are not yet taking appropriate actions in Scotland as consistently or as confidently as we could and should be.

You spoke at the gathering about trust, why do you think it’s so important that people can trust their government?

We increasingly understand that trust in institutions and in political actors is a critical condition for a functioning democracy. Trust is important for good policy-making and governance as it confers legitimacy on those who govern us. Psychological trust in government is also critical for people to feel they can participate in the political process. This increasingly matters because of the complex nature of the crises that governments are trying to address.

Responding to these big policy challenges requires the engagement of citizens. We saw this during the COVID pandemic. Government required the legitimacy to act that was conferred on it by the people of Scotland. Ministers were not relying on force, but on our willingness to follow guidance and understand why government was acting as it was. It’s important that this relationship operates as a two-way thing, recognising that we are have a role to play in a healthy democracy.

At Carnegie UK, trust is one element of what we call “democratic wellbeing”. Democratic wellbeing comes about when people feel they have a voice, can influence the decisions that affect them, and can trust that democracy has their best interests at heart.

We’ve seen that when you have a healthy democracy this feeds through to support other elements of your wellbeing:

• social
• environmental
• economic

If the other elements are addressed, then those in turn feed into positive democratic wellbeing. It’s a virtuous circle – or not.

While it’s tempting to believe that trust in politics and institutions is undermined primarily by individual behaviours and scandals, we actually know that these things come and go. More fundamental behaviours such as:

• lack of transparency around decision making
• poor civic engagement
• failing to communicate the impact of reforms

These are the practices that really erode public trust.

We know that too many people today believe that the system just doesn’t work for them. This is a factor in driving people politically in the direction of those who appear to have simple answers to complex questions. We also know that policy making needs to be done differently, and at Carnegie UK we’ve been working to explore some of the innovations needed to put people at the heart of policy making.

What are your thoughts on ways in which we can be sharing power and fostering a sense of community? 

Two dimensions to that come to mind. One draws on recent evidence from the 2025 World Happiness Report which identifies a connection between low trust in politics and institutions and weakened or fragile social trust and social capital. It suggests that strengthening trusted relationships between people is important, rather than focusing solely on formal political power and decision-making processes. We need to be taking a holistic approach to what supports our sense of belonging and identity in terms of relationships with fellow citizens and the people elected to represent us. 

At Carnegie UK we’re also interested in how government itself becomes more accessible, accountable, and responsive to citizens. We’ve done some work on more deliberative approached to democracy and we want to challenge the idea that representative and deliberative democracy are somehow in competition. Really these approaches strengthen each other. The more you can see policy challenges as belonging to everyone and look for how we can work together, the more we can begin thinking about how to achieve the flourishing vision of society that people want to be a part of and work towards. 

We need to see people in communities as actors with agency. To come back to your question about sharing power, it’s important to be clear about what the government can do, and what it needs to support individuals and communities to do – because they are the best placed. 

If Government puts itself in the position of having to have all the answers (which is one manifestation of power-hoarding) then it is much more exposed when it can’t fix and deliver everything at its own hand. 

Again, ill-informed commentary often suggests that people just want things done to or for them, but evidence – including our own – suggests they do want to be part of the conversation. However, this engagement needs to be done well and in a manner that is prepared to cede some control over what the conclusions may be. Ultimately this approach is to strengthen people’s trust in the democratic process, and this is good for everyone, government included.   

Three months after the gathering what are the questions you’re still thinking about?

I’ve been thinking about the question of “what next?” and that question is becoming increasingly urgent as time passes.

There’s an important conversation to be had about the health of our democracy, as well as a need to consider how you take that conversation out of the room and engage widely with the citizens of Scotland.

There’s also a question about who is best placed to convene that broad conversation as it continues.  There was a sense in Glasgow that government might feel it has to take the lead convening role, but I suspect that for this to be a useful conversation, it’s important that government isn’t perceived as holding or controlling the dialogue. This is where the Open Government Partnership and other players can be helpful.

As part of our work on wellbeing approaches, I’m also thinking about what it means for everyone to have a shared vision of the future of the country, informed by a good understanding of what it is like at present.

Finally, something that has really stuck with me are the voices in the room saying “this is the work we already do, and we know what’s effective and yet it’s really difficult to get support, funding, and attention to do something at a greater scale”. If we’re serious about growing and strengthening this work that builds connections and trust then we really need to invest and scale up for the long term. We do know what is needed. The OECD report on the drivers of trust is very clear. It’s not rocket science.

Find out more an stay in touch

If you’re interested in more reflections on the First Minister’s Democracy Gathering you can read Juliet Swan’s Hope plus delivery equals trust.

If you’d like to stay in the loop on the topics of trust, transparency, and Open Government in Scotland then subscribe to our community bulletin published in collaboration with civil society.

Comments