The use of experts in building political trust: dissenting opinions and critical citizens in times of crisis

Abstract

ABSTRACT Under COVID-19 emergency decrees, countries imposed freedom-restricting measures that health experts endorsed to contain the disease. There has been debates about whether the pandemic has led to the backsliding of democratic standards and the promotion of illiberal and authoritarian practices. This study conducted a survey in Hong Kong, a non-democracy. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government postponed an election widely expected to be won by the opposition. This study explores whether health experts’ opinions could affect public support for postponement of a regular election and government trustworthiness. It finds that neither health experts’ affirmation nor negation increased support for the postponement, but rejecting the government mandate reduced government trustworthiness while affirming it did not. The negative opinions thus had asymmetric information value against affirmative opinions in a known-censored environment. This channel operates through democrats in Hong Kong, who are critical citizens of the regime. The strategy of silencing dissent would be cost-effective for preserving political trust while engaging experts to support the mandates appeared unhelpful. This study contributes to understanding the use of experts in influencing political trust within an authoritarian setting.