In Shakespeare's Macbeth King Duncan, on learning that he had been betrayed by the Thane of Cawdor, laments that 'There's no art To find the mind's construction in the face; He was a gentleman on whom I built An absolute trust'. Duncan appears to have known Cawdor well, yet could not have predicted treachery. Any suspicions about Cawdor were suspended.

This article examines the significance of trust for political life in general and considers the place of trust in the Australian governmental system.

Despite Duncan's experience, trust is generally thought to be most readily given within families or small communities. The experience of living under the same roof or in small communities with frequent face to face contacts and the experience of having to cooperate in the face of problems of invasion, storm, provision and adjudication of disputes, contributes to a growth of trust. We lend neighbours garden or kitchen tools, or trust them with the care of children and pets. Many people find it easier to trust members of their own cultural group than members of others. The sharing of group norms, values and symbols by young, old, rich and poor eases the propensity to be suspicious and thereby increases the possibility for trust.

But this doesn't mean that trust can only operate within the confines of the like-minded or the familiar. Francis Fukuyama argues in his book, Trust, that businesses which are able to extend trust to include non-family members tend to be able to enjoy wealth beyond that imagined by family companies. By extension, societies which are able to extend trust to strangers can prosper. We might give a lift to someone whose car has broken down on the freeway, go shopping without arming ourselves against attack. We employ a baby-sitter, work in someone else's home as a cleaner, give to a charity or join an association. For most people in most situations in a society like ours, these small acts of trust are warranted. With trust we make moves that look bold to the suspicious.

Such generalised trust underpins broader achievements in societies like Australia. Whilst recognising that crimes are committed, exploitation and racism are not unknown, there has been the remarkable achievement of the suspension of suspicion. It is no coincidence, then, that Australia has generated astonishing social achievements by any historical comparison: liberal democracy, tolerance, political equality and welfare. So trust is a vital social good that reproduces itself in ways that we are not always aware of but without which our lives would be very different. It gives individuals the confidence to expand their horizons, take risks, develop and prosper. It means that we do not always have to protect ourselves against deception or betrayal. We don't have to constantly act upon suspicion which would require extensive checking of credentials before any social arrangement can be entered into.

But there may be a problem that trust is increasingly coming under threat even in countries which have lived relatively peaceably. Why? Are we increasingly having divergent life experiences which are accompanied by different value sets and expectations?

What contributes to this state of affairs? Often it is associated with perceptions of unfair advantage; that one group is getting more out of the system than is appropriate, by whatever criteria. These perceptions may contain some reality. Equally they can be encouraged by aspiring politicos seeking to mobilise supporters. Trust is fragile because political operators can strain it. Supporters of Pauline Hanson are encouraged to be distrustful of mainstream Australian government and opinion formers. Conversely, many opponents of Hanson do not trust her and her supporters to raise questions about immigration for public discussion.

Trust can diminish in societies for other reasons. Economic disparities can lead to an underclass which distrusts such governing mechanisms as the welfare and policing systems. In turn, members of an underclass can be held in fear by others. For some, the development of youth culture with its own language and morés creates a distance between them and young people. Equally, youth culture reinforces the sense of generational gaps that young people experience. Some argue that the revival of the ethic of the individual also erodes trust. These are all complex issues each worthy of closer investigation. However they all raise questions about something that we are unused to thinking about because we have taken it for granted, the place of trust in ensuring social integration. Historically, of course, polities like ours have supplemented trust with laws, rights and contracts.

Laws limit our behaviours for mutual protection. Some (e.g. traffic laws) protect us by coordinating our actions. Others protect us by discouraging those who might otherwise cause harm. Human rights give us some protection and autonomy from government and from one another. We typically claim our rights when we feel abused or misused by some section of society; we cannot trust 'them' to treat us properly and so we invoke our rights to fair treatment, freedom from harassment and myriad other things. Economic transactions are protected by contracts between employers and employees and between vendors and purchasers.

In all these cases we have systems of detection, prosecution, adjudication and punishment to give us confidence that laws, rights and contracts will enable us to behave as if trust could be extended to strangers. They deter those who might exploit our trust. Laws, rights and contracts also represent the shared values on which further trust can be built.

However, dependence on laws, rights and contracts may remove expectations of trustworthiness. A society which increasingly relies on its legal system may reflect growing suspicion and the habits of trust - agreement and understanding through negotiation and experience - may be endangered.

This question of the balance to be struck between rules and trust brings us to our system of government. Although we call our system democratic, meaning 'rule by the people', it is in fact a representative system of indirect rule. We elect representatives, some of whom in turn form a government which rules. Despite the frequency of their electronic and print appearances in our homes these representatives are, for most of us, complete strangers, raising the question of how much they should be trusted?

Conclusion...