Everything flows, everything changes, only our homeland remains still. This is what comes to mind when observing the ratings of Latvian institutions in the SKDS annual survey. For ten years now, the public trust of various institutions has remained unchanged.
Chronically the lowest trust in Latvian society has been earned by political parties (-69.3%, the proportion of positive assessments minus the proportion of negative assessments), the Saeima (-51.6%), and the government (-43.3%). The list of institutions with the highest public trust rating has also remained unchanged - educational institutions (56.4%), armed forces (43.7%), health care institutions (37.3%). This invariance of trust, despite the changes in the leadership of the various institutions, reflects the strategic political balance that exists in our society. Maybe even a certain stagnation, when people, in general, have come to terms with the surrounding reality and live with it in a neutral coexistence. We care about ourselves; they care about themselves.
It just seems that schools, hospitals, and the army have gained the highest level of trust simply because there are no other institutions to celebrate. For example, the President once had a high rating. Someone may dislike Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga for various reasons, but there is no denying that she was a bright personality who was respected both by society as a whole and by the political class. Unfortunately, after her presidency, the authority of the institution no longer stands out with lasting stability.
For a short time, there were weak hopes that Egils Levits, with his acclaimed intellectual capacity, would be able to raise the slumped presidential rating, but it turned out that society demands more than wise words from institutions of this level on the conditional subject - is there life on Mars? Many are able to speak more or less wisely by scattering in some foreign words and new words, but that is not why they get placed in high posts. A high post requires a strong and clear position. If the official is unable to demonstrate such a position on any issue, then it is not surprising that the rating is also dragging behind.
The Ombudsman's rating is the most obvious example of this correlation, based on the opposite. The Ombudsman initiated consideration of several issues (on the non-compliance of the minimum income with the Constitution and others) with the Constitutional Court, achieved changes in regulatory enactments, and, as a result, the Ombudsman of the state's individually personified institutions has the highest rating of 35.9%. For comparison, the rating of the institution of the President is -10.3% (which is the lowest indicator since the rating measurements have been made).
The catastrophically low rating of the institution of the President is a consequence of the cowardly actions of the direct head of this institution. Every time the Saeima passes a controversial bill, the president mumbles something in his beard, saying that the bill could have been better, but in the end signs it, quietly grumbling. It would have been better to sign it with his head held high, saying out loud that the document in question is outstanding, the best of all possible. If, when signing a law, the president has to wince like he has bitten into a lemon, then it is clear that something is not right there, but the president himself, who performs his duties as if enduring a toothache, cannot claim public recognition.
If we look at where the trust of the Latvian society has improved the most in the last ten years - it is the health care system (+15%; from 49% (only positive assessment) to 64%); state police (from 43% to 60%); ombudsman (from 28% to 56%); your municipality (from 41% to 54%); courts (from 36% to 47%).
Trust has also declined in radio (from 68% to 58%), television (from 65% to 54%), State Audit Office (from 59% (even 68% in 2011) to 50%), printed press (from 57% to 46%), Internet news portals (from 44% to 38%). It is significant that trust in the media has waned. This loss of trust is even more impressive if the ratings are compared to 1997 when SKDS first conducted a trust survey of these institutions. What does this indicate?
It indicates the fact that the same processes are taking place in Latvia as in other parts of the world - a general loss of trust in information as such. People are losing landmarks. Once upon a time, they knew: I would open my newspaper in the morning, turn on the TV in the evening, or the radio on the way to work, and there a person I trust would tell me everything, but now I open the computer and there is an avalanche of information; I turn on the TV or radio and there's another "wise guy" trying to convince me of something. No, I better not trust anyone. Just myself. However, such a question is not included in the surveys. But maybe it should.