Table 1
Literature on political trust and democracies.
| Author | Conclusion | Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Cleary, Stokes (2006) | Political trust reduces support for authoritarian leaders, supporting democratic governance | Argentina, Mexico |
| Dalton (2017) | Political trust leads to more impartial political participation, strengthening democracy by giving diverse representation | The USA, Canada |
| Esaiasson et al. (2021) | Political trust strengthens compliance with government policies, enhancing social cohesion and democratic stability | Sweden |
| Hetherington (2005) | Political trust boosts citizens’ confidence in democratic processes and motivates political participation | The USA |
| Hibbing, Theiss-Morse (2002) | Political trust correlates with greater acceptance of political outcomes and strengthens support for democratic systems | The USA |
| Keele (2007) | Political trust correlates with increased voter turnout, as trust in institutions motivates citizens to engage in voting | The USA |
| Levi, Stoker (2000) | Political trust strengthens compliance with democratic norms and increases support for institutional legitimacy | The USA, Western Europe |
| Marien, Hooghe (2011) | Political trust is important for stability as it is associated with a stronger commitment to compliance with the law | Thirty-three European countries |
| Mishler, Rose (2001) | Political trust is associated with greater democratic stability and increased support for democratic practices | Ten post-Communist countries |
| Newton (2001) | Political trust helps to build effective political institutions and to create the conditions for a prospering civil society | Forty-two countries worldwide |
Source: Author’s compilation.
Table 2
Literature on political distrust and democracies.
| Author | Conclusion | Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Butzlaff, Messinger-Zimmer (2020) | Rising levels of distrust can undermine democratic attitudes and participation | Germany |
| Citrin, Stoker (2018) | The long-term decline in political trust is linked to increased partisanship and polarization | The USA |
| Geissel (2008) | Dissatisfaction and distrust can weaken democratic institutions and erode belief in democracy | Germany |
| Laux (2023) | While some degree of distrust is necessary for democracy, excessive distrust can hinder the effectiveness of governance | EU |
| Miller, Listhaug (1990) | Distrust can catalyze the rise of protest parties and alternative political movements | Norway, Sweden, the USA |
| Ouattara, Van der Meer (2023) | Structurally low and declining political trust can diminish citizens’ support for democratic reforms | The Netherlands |
Source: Author’s compilation.
Table 3
Balanced trust and democratic quality.
| Government voters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low political trust | High political trust | ||
| Opposition voters | Low political trust | Healthy democracy with balanced skepticism | High risk of democratic erosion |
| High political trust | High risk of democratic erosion | Healthy democracy with mutual confidence | |
Source: Author.
Table 4
Literature on how democratic decline polarizes society.
| Authors | Conclusion | Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Bermeo (2016) | Social divisions deepen in response to the perceived threats to democratic norms | More than 150 countries worldwide |
| Dimitrova (2018) | Democratic backsliding leads to social polarization as various groups respond differently to these changes | Central and Eastern Europe |
| Wunsch, Gessler (2023) | The erosion of democratic norms creates divides, particularly between government and opposition supporters | Hungary |
| Grillo, Prato (2023) | Democratic erosion can result in polarization, as citizens become uncertain about political preferences | UK |
| McCoy, Rahman, Somer (2018) | As democracies weaken, polarization emerges as a consequence of political crisis | 10 countries worldwide |
Source: Author’s compilation.
Figure 1
LDI of the V4 countries.
Source: Author based on V-DEM data.
Figure 2
Political Trust of the V4 countries.
Source: Author based on European Social Survey (ESS) data.
Figure 3
LDI and Political Trust in Hungary.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.
Figure 4
LDI and Political Trust in Poland.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.
Figure 5
LDI and Political Trust in Czechia.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.
Figure 6
LDI and Political Trust in Slovakia.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.
Figure 7
Country-level trends of key variables.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.
Table 5
Correlation coefficients of key variables (N = 38).
| Country-level average of trust | Trust gap | |
|---|---|---|
| LDI | −0.539** | –0.856** |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Source: Author’s calculation.
Figure 8
LDI and country-level average of political trust.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.
Figure 9
LDI and trust gap.
Source: Author based on V-DEM and ESS data.