It was not self-evident until recently that there might be important questions to be asked about the relationship between democracy and trust. Considered historically, we can appreciate why: Liberalism, and then liberal democracy, emerged from the distrust of traditional political and clerical authorities. Liberal innovations were aimed at checking the discretionary powers implied in trust relations (Dunn 1988; Ely 1980). More democracy has meant more oversight of and less trust in authorities. The topic does not seem any more obvious when we consider the place of trust within political life from a more generic perspective. Politics is distinguished from other kinds of social relations by conflicts of interests and identities, so that the mere fact that a social relationship has become political throws into question the very conditions for trust. Trust involves a judgment, however implicit, to accept vulnerability to the potential ill will of others by granting them discretionary power over some good. When one trusts, one accepts some amount of risk for potential harm in exchange for the benefits of cooperation. As Annette Baier (1986: 235) puts it, “Where one depends on another's good will, one is necessarily vulnerable to the limits of that good will. One leaves others an opportunity to harm one when one trusts, and also shows one's confidence that they will not take it.” So if I extend trust I am also judging – however habitually or tacitly –that my trust will not be abused.