Parliamentary openness / public trust? Jonathan Murphy EC-UNDP Rada for Europe Project United Nations Development Programme Ukraine

General crisis of public trust Growing public mistrust of democratic processes Widespread perception of corruption / self-interested governance Rise of populism and anti-elite discourses Questioning of internationalism and globalism At the same time Citizen expectation of governance openness and transparency Limited deliberation and rapid swings in public opinion

International phenomenon Declining trust in democratic systems has been noted in many countries, including among young people who have traditionally been particularly supportive of democracy; Although some commentary has been exaggerated, there is a general trend of democratic scepticism, particularly in the West; Parliaments in particular tend to score low in trust levels among public institutions; In a recent global World Values Survey, in only four of 15 established democracies did more than half of voters express trust in parliament; More than half of respondents expressed trust in only 2 of 27 developing country parliaments.

Why do democracies break down? According to Juan Linz: The rise of “disloyal opposition”— political actors including parties and political leaders The growth of “semi-loyal behaviour”: political actors willing “to encourage, tolerate, cover up, treat leniently, excuse or justify the actions of other participants that go beyond the limits of peaceful, legitimate … politics in a democracy.”

Trust in parliament in Ukraine The Rada for Europe project conducted a survey of public perceptions in the Verkhovna Rada in 2016, in order to inform development of a VRU communications strategy; Survey of 2000 respondents across Ukraine carried out by the company InMind, complemented by qualitative focus groups & in- depth interviews; Public interest in the work of the Verkhovna Rada is quite high; third among state institutions behind the Presidency and the Police; However, similar to findings in other countries, overall trust levels of the VRU are among the lowest of state institutions, ahead only of political parties and the courts;

How to communicate with parliament? Ukrainian citizens view MPs as the primary point of contact with the institution; fewer than half of respondents were able to identify a way to communicate with parliament as a whole; Preferred communications methods with MPs include attending at an MPs office, communication by telephone, mail, social media, and email; However only a small proportion of citizens; 6%, had actually directly contacted an MP or the VRU themselves

Assessment of parliament Overall assessments of the work of parliament and parliamentarians were quite negative. Among factors most commonly mentioned were: Failure to carry out their constitutional functions; Distance from the population; Inappropriate influence on decision-making in parliament; Lack of institutional reforms Focus on minor issues not central to citizen needs

How to move beyond? No simple answers, but: Communication important but not sufficient; Citizens are increasingly sophisticated – they know the difference between real and fake dialogue, and don’t forget false promises; Increase transparency but don’t expect immediate public perception payback; Focusing dialogue on young people crucial; attitudes to democracy are long-term; Rebuild respect for democracy by forging consensus on the rules of the game; ‘loyal opposition’