Imagine coming across a petition on a topic or theme you genuinely care about. You read it, you sign it, and then what? It might feel like the perfect, small way to influence (national) politics. But as time passes, you never hear another word about it.
Across the European Union, trust in national politics is running low: only 36 per cent of EU citizens say they trust their national government. At the same time, nearly half of all countries worldwide experienced some form of democratic decline over the past five years. Notably, these problems are not just limited to fragile states. They show up in stable, long-established democracies too, including those within the European Union.
Citizen initiatives, tools that allow citizens to propose new laws or even changes to the country’s constitution by collecting enough signatures, are often promoted as one of democracy’s best solutions to low and falling political distrust. It seems like an appealing idea, but does it actually work?
The assumption is quite simple: give people a direct voice, and surely they will trust the system more. For my bachelor’s thesis, I decided to put this assumption to the test. I analysed survey data from over 20,000 people across 13 EU member states and combined it with country-level information on how accessible national citizen initiative systems are. What I found was both more interesting and more nuanced than a simple yes-or-no answer.
Signing does not automatically build trust
The first surprise: people who had signed a petition in the past year did not show higher trust than people who had not. Rather, once accounted for personal differences such as age, education, and political interest, initiative users turned out to be even slightly less trusting. Exactly the opposite of what was expected.
A closer look offers a possible explanation. As for this study, initiative users tend to be older, better educated, and more politically interested. Quite possibly, this group is among the most critical of government performance. Where others might see citizen initiatives as a positive opportunity to participate, these citizens turn to them as a corrective tool, a way to intervene when the national system falls short.
An easier system? Not the solution either
The second surprise concerned access. Across the 13 countries studied, how easy it is to start and run an initiative varies widely. Between countries, there are big differences in signature thresholds, collection deadlines, the availability of digital signing tools, and whether initiatives receive parliamentary priority.
It might seem obvious that making it easier to organise an initiative and participate would boost trust in the government. However, my findings prove otherwise. There was no clear connection between how accessible a country’s citizen initiative system is and how much citizens trust national politics. Austria, for example, has one of the most accessible systems, yet it only ranked third in political trust among the 13 countries studied. Meanwhile, Hungary, with one of the least accessible systems, ranked second.
So if it is not participation and accessibility, what actually does build trust? The answer turns out to be pretty straightforward.
It comes down to feeling heard
Interestingly, what mattered most was not whether someone had used a citizen initiative, or how accessible their country’s system was on paper. It was something simpler: whether people experienced and believed that their political system actually gave them a say. Simply said: do people feel their government listens to them and lets them make a difference?
This result actually tells us something important. Direct democratic tools, such as citizen initiatives, are not valuable simply because they exist or people use them. They become valuable when they give citizens the sense that their voice actually counts. If being heard is what truly builds trust, a citizen initiative that never gets a response certainly is a missed opportunity.
A final surprise among the most democratically dissatisfied
Interestingly, among the most democratically dissatisfied citizens, using a citizen initiative actually softened political distrust, rather than deepening it. Those who had signed a petition ended up slightly more trusting of national politics than those who did not.
What this means in practice
Taken together, all findings of this study bring us back to that individual who signs a petition, hoping their individual action will bring change. The results point to three shifts worth making in the citizen initiative landscape.
First, the emphasis should move from merely access and participation to response. Making it easier to participate seems to matter less than what actually happens afterwards. As feeling heard shows to be the main driver of political trust, a guaranteed response, be it in the form of a written reply or parliamentary debate, is a concrete way to create that feeling for citizens.
Second, more can be done to diversify who actually organises and signs citizen initiatives. Current users tend to be older, better educated, and already politically interested, and report lower political trust than non-users. To weaken this negative association and strengthen the potential of citizen initiatives to actually build trust, participation has to go beyond the current crowd. Practical training, simpler digital tools, and targeted outreach to underrepresented groups are concrete ways to work towards that.
Third, citizen initiatives may work as a buffer against political distrust among the most dissatisfied citizens. This points towards a clear direction: expanding these tools in low-trust, high-dissatisfaction contexts. Citizen initiatives are not only an opportunity for direct participation but also a tool that may help reinforce trust among this group of society.
One final point: none of the above means that citizen initiatives are the wrong tool for increasing political trust. It means they will only work as intended when citizens really feel they are being heard. Direct democracy will not repair political trust simply by inviting people to speak up. It has to make sure someone is actually listening when they do.
