by Vishrut Srivastava

Created on: April 25, 2009

Before directly answering the question, we must first look at the function of government, in particular the American democratic system. The representative government's function is to put into action the voice of the public, who ideally have the ultimate say in what policy is put into practice. By electing the officials in office, the public actually determines the kinds of people who make the decisions. So, we can move forward from the idea that, if democracy is working, the officials in power are only in their positions because the public has asked them to step up.

Another point that needs to be made is that progress is inherently a product of trial and error. Assuming that all the decisions made by an individual will be perfect is requiring a level of perfection that is impossible. The democratic system puts into place officials that are qualified to make educated decisions, so it is the responsibility of the American public to give them the freedom to exercise the faculty that we elected them to use. Trust, used here as a way of saying, "You are in a position of power, now do something meaningful," is what truly enables an official to make any significant changes, and therefore progress. Because fundamentally, it is public support that drives policy making. The current Obama administration has recently been making this more and more relevant, like with the prosecution of officials involved in torture used in the Bush administration.

Answering "no" to the question of whether we should trust our government officials is inherently counter-productive. The very people that don't trust the people in power are implying that they want change, but to bring about change officials need the support of the public. This cycle can only be broken by trusting the system, and letting democracy work. Only when the cycle is broken can problems be solved, the very issues that the non-trusting citizens complain about.

Naturally, trust should only go so far. I am not saying that we give complete trust to the people in power. That in itself would defeat the purpose of democracy, in which each citizen must be critical of the administration. We must trust our officials enough that they have free reign to make significant changes, but not to the point that they can do anything they want. In this case, it is most appropriate to assume the good intentions of our officials. While this is not saying that officials are inherently good, but it is saying that we have an historically effective system of checks and balances at work which, coupled with a constituency that intelligently trusts its administration, allows for positive progress over time.

Learn more about this author, Vishrut Srivastava.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.