In the 2024 political debate, Democrats doubled down on familiar refrains: The most important election of our lives. Democracy is on the ballot. This is our civic duty.
On Election Night, that urgency failed to bear out. When all the votes were tallied, nearly a third of the country had sat out the election, a silent damnation of a democracy that has failed them.
As we head into another election cycle, politicos and podcasters have debriefed candidates, messages, and party failures – everything but the most important predictor of turnout: do voters trust that casting their ballot will result in a government that listens to them?
For the growing majority of the American public, the answer is no.
While financial and military support for the Gaza genocide exacerbated distrust in political leaders, it’s only the most recent addition to a growing body of evidence that American democracy fails to respond to public will.
Each year, more Americans grapple with why guns aren’t regulated despite the latest mass shooting, why investors are bailed out after selling scammed mortgages, why digital spaces aren’t penalized for spreading lies and misinformation. From 1958 to 2025, Americans’ belief in our civic institutions has fallen to just 17% – a reminder that it’s not just you. We’re living through one of the most significant periods of civic disillusionment in our country’s history.
In this context, when Americans withdraw from our political systems, we need to recognize they aren’t doing so out of apathy. They’re demonstrating civic trauma. That kind of trauma requires a different kind of democracy to heal.
Civic trauma refers to the hopelessness that accumulates from repeatedly facing up against a system that actively harms and excludes you. It teaches us to adjust our response, based on what we’ve learned to expect from a system that repeatedly fails us.
People react to this feeling in different ways. For some, civic trauma looks like not voting. For others, it looks like voting as protection – without the belief that your engagement will yield a system that actually serves you.
It’s why – even when our preferred party is in office, less than 40% of Americans trust our civic institutions. It also explains why non-voters are deeply engaged in other civic life – part of faith communities, protests and marches, and active in community discussions – they go where they see their voice having an impact on the outcome.
When the public loses trust in the ability of electoral participation to make their lives better, we need more than a poll-tested message and a mega-watt smile to fix things. We have to invest in rebuilding trust in our civic institutions.
In other words, we cannot just be focused on a different Democratic Party. We need a different form of governance.
Collaborative governance, or co-governance as it is often called, offers us a pathway towards more responsive and accountable institutions. Using public budgeting processes, civic assemblies, and co-designed policy solutions, people harmed by the issues become instrumental to solving them.
This version of democracy demonstrates a different commitment. After community assemblies in Washington, 90% of participants said they felt more confident that they can influence policies impacting their communities. “For the first time in a long time,” said one participant, “my voice really mattered.” Policymaking through direct collaboration builds a different kind of ownership, not just in the idea of democracy, but in who democracy works for.
Nowhere can we see that better right now than in New York City. While many attributed Candidate Mamdani’s meteoric rise to his digital presence and DSA ties, New Yorkers who have never heard of democratic socialism seem just as smitten as his Instagram followers. To them, Mamdani represents a style of leadership laser-focused on making government work for people.
After the Rent Control Board passed a two-year rent freeze recently, he brought a cake to celebrate with tenants, saying: “You all have helped to build this city. You’ve given stability to this city. It’s time this city brings stability to you.”
It’s telling that Kamala Harris — fresh off a campaign that leaned on the old playbook of message discipline and mega-watt smiles — has reportedly reached out to Mamdani in recent days. But if Democratic party leaders seek to borrow popularity rather than adapting to a new governing philosophy, they will miss the point entirely.
There are so many ways to consider how we rebuild trust in government – but it’s important we don’t forget that the work of building trust doesn’t end at the election.
It’s about how we govern – and prove that we are worth voting for.
This op-ed is part of “The Case for Co-Governance,” a narrative series on co-governance and democracy.
Niketa Brar coined the concept of “civic trauma” and has spent the past decade building the infrastructure to address it in Chicago government. As the founding executive director of Chicago United for Equity, she built the Vote Equity Project, People’s Budget Chicago, and introduced public Racial Equity Impact Assessments to Chicago – all methods designed to repair civic distrust through direct, collaborative governance with communities harmed by legacies of democratic disenfranchisement.
She now chairs the City of Chicago’s Equity Advisory Council and leads national collaborative governance efforts through For the Many Strategies, a national practice building responsive and trustworthy governments.
Add to the Discussion
Next City sustaining members can comment on our stories. Keep the discussion going! Join our community of engaged members by donating today.
Already a sustaining member? Login here.
Facts Only
* Democrats emphasized the importance of the election as the most important event in life, with calls for civic duty.
* Nearly one-third of the country sat out the election following the tallying of votes.
* Financial and military support for the Gaza genocide increased distrust in political leaders.
* American belief in civic institutions fell to 17% between 1958 and 2025.
* Americans grapple with issues such as gun regulation, mortgage bailouts, and digital misinformation.
* A growing majority of Americans do not trust that voting results in a government that listens to them.
* Less than 40% of Americans trust civic institutions, even when their preferred party is in office.
* Non-voters are observed being engaged in other civic life, such as faith communities and protests.
* Collaborative governance involves public budgeting processes, civic assemblies, and co-designed policy solutions.
* Participants in community assemblies felt more confident they could influence policies impacting their communities.
Executive Summary
The political debate highlighted a lack of public trust in the democratic process, as demonstrated when nearly a third of the country abstained from an election. This distrust is contextualized by increasing public concern over systemic failures, evidenced by issues such as gun regulation, mortgage bailouts, and the spread of misinformation. A sustained decline in public belief in civic institutions is noted, with trust falling to just 17% between 1958 and 2025. This disillusionment leads some citizens to withdraw from political systems, not necessarily out of apathy, but due to accumulated civic trauma stemming from a system perceived as actively harmful or exclusionary.
The text proposes that rebuilding this trust requires shifting governance structures away from traditional models toward collaborative governance. This approach involves using public budgeting, civic assemblies, and co-designed policy solutions to make the public instrumental in solving community issues. Examples are provided through the work of Niketa Brar, who has implemented methods like public Racial Equity Impact Assessments and built infrastructure for collaborative governance to address historical disenfranchisement. The narrative suggests that focusing solely on party affiliation is insufficient; a different form of governance is necessary to foster accountability and responsiveness.
Full Take
The narrative establishes a framework where political disengagement is framed as civic trauma—a response to repeated systemic harm and exclusion rather than simple apathy. This framing shifts the locus of problem from individual voter choice to institutional failure, suggesting that traditional representative democracy is inherently flawed when it fails to reflect public will. The shift proposed moves beyond mere policy adjustments within existing structures toward a fundamental re-architecting of governance through co-governance. This implies that legitimacy is not derived solely from electoral participation but from the demonstrable mechanism by which power is exercised and how those mechanisms incorporate the voices of the affected. The contrast drawn between traditional political messaging emphasizing unity and the emerging preference for direct collaboration suggests a deep tension between top-down, charismatic leadership models and bottom-up, participatory accountability structures. The reference to leaders borrowing popularity rather than adapting reflects a potential pattern where ideological focus is subordinated to performative communication designed to mask underlying structural deficits.
What happens when public trust is fundamentally broken across multiple domains—political, economic, and social—and the proposed solution involves empowering marginalized groups in direct decision-making? How does one reconcile the necessary focus on pragmatic solutions with the inherent difficulty of achieving consensus among deeply traumatized populations regarding what constitutes a "responsive" system? What are the long-term systemic risks if institutional rebuilding focuses only on procedural changes without addressing the historical roots of civic disenfranchisement?
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits strong human-authored characteristics, characterized by a passionate synthesis of political observation and theoretical concepts grounded in specific contextual examples.