If we wanted a one-sentence summary of what the polls told us about Canadian democracy in 2013, it would be this: We’re losing faith.

Let’s start with the deep historical context. Out of a range of structural changes in Canadian society, perhaps the most significant has been the shift from a more trusting, collectivist society to one more individualistic, more wary of the state and public institutions. The deferential and conformist societies of the post-Second World War era gave way to counterculture and protest in the 1960s and 1970s, a transformation that continues to this day.

The rise of mass education, along with more critical media and a more cynical pop culture, has produced a more aware and less trusting public — a shift which poses huge challenges to governments and democratic institutions. A more educated and less docile public, willing to hold their public institutions to account, is a good thing. But it’s now clear that the trust deficit and the broader unravelling of social cohesion has reached a level where it is compromising the very legitimacy of our democracy and public institutions.

These faultlines are even more pronounced among younger Canadians, who are sitting on the sidelines as a sclerotic gerontocracy shapes the public agenda. These effects are not only threatening a legitimacy crisis, a lack of basic reciprocal good faith may be undermining the economy.

The roots of this decline in trust run deep and there are no quick fixes. The drivers ultimately are cultural — what some have called the “rhythms of post-materialism” — and there is no evidence that what Neil Nevitte called “the decline of deference” has turned around since he noted that trend 15 years ago. If anything, the decline has continued and perhaps even accelerated among younger Canadians.

Related articles The EKOS poll: Shedding light on a dark year

While Stephen Harper became prime minister at a very challenging time, the trust factor seems only to have gotten worse on his watch. This is ironic, since Mr. Harper took office vowing to restore honesty and transparency to government and his victory was driven largely by the public’s conviction that the Liberals had lost touch with principles of basic accountability and trust. So these issues can be important factors shaping political choices.

Increasingly, however, voters seem to think that all choices lead to the same outcome: governments run by parties which place their own interests and the interests of the powerful ahead of those of the public. In fact, if we were to isolate the one factor driving declining trust in government it would be just that: the corrosive belief that the public interest has been subordinated to other interests in modern politics.

But does it really matter? Are citizens becoming inured to the idea that a loss of trust in government is inevitable and not something to be overly concerned about?

Consider the results of a tradeoff question we asked Canadians a few months back: Of all the things that might keep you up at night, what worries you most?

We no longer seem to worry about nuclear annihilation or violence in the streets. A super-SARS pandemic isn’t bothering us that much, nor is the idea of ubiquitous surveillance monitoring our every move. The thing which seemed to bother Canadians the most was the “acute decline of our democratic and public institutions”.

In other words, the health of our democracy is a bedrock concern for Canadians. Don’t mistake a sense of learned helplessness for indifference. Canadians are jaded and suspicious — that doesn’t mean they don’t care.

We noted that the roots of the decline of trust in government and democracy are deep and that this phenomenon is not unique to Canada. We also note that while the major declines occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, there is evidence that the trendlines are going down again (note that the most recent PEW sounding of the trust-in-Washington indicator fell below 20 points in the fall of this year). We’ve also been asking people for the last five years to rate the overall health of democracy.

The pattern here is both clear and troubling. While we were leaning toward seeing Canadian democracy as somewhat healthy in early 2009, that optimism has steadily eroded to the rather dismal reading we got at year’s end. Just over one quarter of Canadians now see our democracy as healthy — and for the first time, a clear majority say our democracy is sick.

So while the Harper government is by no means responsible for the poor democratic health of the country, it certainly hasn’t managed to slow the trend — let alone reverse it. The rating of Canada’s democratic health has been on a straight line downward and is now at a historical nadir. Other polling from 2013 suggests that the public considers both the Senate spending scandal (the cover-up, rather than the initial infractions) and the vote suppression ‘robocall’ scandal to be more serious than the ad sponsorship scandal which crippled the Liberal Party of Canada.

This belief that democracy is ailing is shared in all regions and demographic cohorts. The only striking division is across partisan boundaries. Nearly two-thirds of the remaining Conservative base rates democracy as ‘healthy’; across all other parts of the political spectrum, the average ‘healthy’ rating of healthy is around 15 per cent.

Now, the good news: The public seems receptive to a number of proposed fixes to our ‘democratic deficit’. These range from sweeping ideas — such as replacing political parties — to more commonsense suggestions like abandoning first-past-the-post for proportional representation.

Let’s look closer at two specific ideas. One is the package of reforms developed by Conservative MP Michael Chong. Although it includes other measures, the most notable would give sitting MPs the power to replace a leader who has lost their confidence. The idea enjoys broad public support — particularly with men and the university-educated. The only group which doesn’t express clear support for Chong’s plan is Conservative supporters — and even with them the proposal produces a pretty even split.

We’re also seeing broad support for a more radical concept: mandatory voting. Although it’s a little more controversial than Chong’s bill, the idea of compelling all citizens to vote is supported by a clear majority and opposed by roughly one-third. The most attractive feature of this measure, which has been in place in Australia since 1924, is that it solves the problem of low voter turnout. Obviously, one would prefer a situation where most people vote voluntarily (as is the case in Denmark, for example) but one could argue that the inventory of evils associated with the new permanence of parties’ get-out-the-vote campaigns has risen to a point where a drastic measure is necessary.

Voter turnout in Australia is around 90 per cent; those Australians who fail to vote face fines, not jail time, and the measure enjoys the support of around 80 per cent of the country. Mandatory voting doesn’t seem to favour any particular party in the long run — and may have the added benefit of forcing parties to craft platforms and campaigns that address the needs and aspirations of all voters, rather than just narrowcasting to eke out a majority (a strategy ably described by Susan Delacourt in her recent book).

Perhaps the best effect of mandatory voting would be its potential to reset democracy with young voters, who are opting out entirely in droves. Voting is a habit; there is evidence that young people who do not vote carry that habit with them into later life. The decision of many young people to drop out of democracy altogether is reducing their numeric influence over elections to about one quarter of what it was twenty years ago. It’s no surprise, then, that we see an increasing gap between the values and interests expressed by younger Canada and those of older Canada.

While we’re not holding our breath for mandatory voting, we note that proper polling can and should represent the voices of those who are not participating in elections — notably the young and the more vulnerable members of society. This view of polling as a boon to democracy and public debate is by no means universal and, given the Canadian polling industry’s rather bruising year, we thought we would ask the public about the value of polling to democracy. Having discounted the potential selection bias (those agreeing to be polled may be predisposed to be more favorable to polling in general), what we found was less than a stirring endorsement: Only 18 per cent see the impacts of polling as mostly negative, while 35 per cent see it as mostly positive.

So what does our 2013 democracy checkup tell us? We’ve got problems — and they’ve gotten worse over the past year. While there are clear opportunities here to pursue reforms that could renew our institutions and restore Canadians’ faith in the power of the ballot, no one should assume this is a small problem. It’s getting bigger all the time.

Frank Graves is the founder and president of EKOS Research Associates, Ltd.

The field dates for this survey are December 12-20, 2013. In total, 1,531 Canadians aged 18 and over responded to the survey. Of these cases, 1,427 were collected online, while 104 were collected by computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI). The margin of error associated with the total sample is +/-2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.