By Alex Scales, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Many parliaments around the world are operating in an environment of declining trust, growing political polarisation and heightened public scrutiny of political conduct. In response, parliamentary integrity initiatives such as codes of conduct, registers of interests, lobbying regulations, transparency measures and ethics oversight bodies have become increasingly prominent tools for safeguarding democratic governance.
Yet, as a recent joint seminar between the International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN) and Westminster Foundation for Democracy explored, the relationship between integrity initiatives and public trust is far from straightforward. Bringing together perspectives from research, civic technology and democracy support, the discussion examined how integrity initiatives fit within wider efforts to strengthen public engagement, accountability and democratic resilience.
A central theme throughout was that integrity initiatives and reforms do not automatically generate trust, challenging the assumption that more transparency necessarily leads to greater public confidence. In fact, in some circumstances integrity initiatives may even reduce trust by exposing misconduct without demonstrating accountability or change.
Public trust itself is complex and fluid, shaped by a much wider set of factors including political performance and responsiveness, lived experiences of government, and citizens’ perceptions of whether institutions act in the public interest. Many citizens often do not distinguish clearly between parliament and government, meaning that efforts to improve trust in parliament may have limited impact if wider frustrations with politics, public services and governance remain unaddressed.
Three key lessons emerged from the discussion:
- Transparency only builds trust when it is accompanied by accountability. Transparency remains essential, but publishing information alone will not strengthen trust. Where transparency reveals misconduct but accountability mechanisms fail to respond, it can reinforce perceptions that corruption is widespread and tolerated. Participants reflected on the paradox that more transparent institutions can sometimes appear less trustworthy than less transparent ones simply because problems are more visible. A key implication is that transparency must be accompanied by credible enforcement, independent scrutiny and visible accountability if it is to strengthen rather than weaken public confidence.
- Citizens want evidence that integrity reforms change behaviour and improve outcomes. The discussion repeatedly returned to the importance of moving beyond procedural achievements and demonstrating real-world impact. Citizens are unlikely to gain confidence in parliaments simply because a code of conduct, ethics framework or register of interests has been introduced. Instead, institutions need to show how these reforms have influenced behaviour, improved decision-making and strengthened accountability. The same principle applies to public engagement: repeated consultation without visible results can contribute to engagement fatigue, whereas trust is more likely to grow when citizens can see how their contributions have shaped parliamentary business or led to meaningful change. In short, citizens are interested less in the existence of reforms or consultations, than in whether those efforts make democratic institutions more responsive to their concerns.
- Trust is collective, shaped by political culture and easily damaged by misconduct. Public expectations of integrity are influenced by local political cultures and cannot be separated from wider political realities. The discussion highlighted how practices considered inappropriate in one context may be viewed differently in another, requiring integrity reforms to be grounded in local contexts rather than treated as technical imports. At the same time, trust operates collectively: citizens often see politicians, parties, governments and parliaments as part of the same system, meaning misconduct by one actor can damage confidence across the board. This contagion effect helps to explain why trust is difficult to build and easy to lose, requiring a collective commitment to accountability and integrity across the wider political system, rather than focusing solely on individual politicians or parliamentary rules.
Overall, the discussion found that transparency, engagement and integrity reforms alone are rarely sufficient to build public confidence. Instead, trust depends on various other factors and actors, presenting a significant challenge for parliaments operating in increasingly polarised and sceptical environments. Despite these complexities, the discussion pointed towards a clear conclusion: integrity initiatives strengthen public trust only when citizens can see that they change behaviour, produce accountability and improve democratic responsiveness.
Ultimately, trust is not built through rules alone. It is built when institutions and political actors demonstrate, consistently, collectively and visibly, that they are worthy of it.
IPEN members are encouraged to share their thoughts and continue the discussion in Microsoft Teams: 📢New seminar recording: When do parliamentary integrity initiatives strengthen public trust? Lessons for public engagement and democratic resilience.
Featured Image: Public event at the National Assembly on Public Debt Management, Nigeria. Image credit: Westminster Foundation for Democracy. All rights reserved