Taking things on trust doesn't mean that all you have to do is close your eyes, think of Ireland and hope for the best.
It won't do, as your local agony aunt will tell you. Trust in any relationship has to be earned and worked on. And what's true of personal affairs goes for public life as well.
In this case, "public life" doesn't begin or end with politics.
When you hear people talking about trust you can be sure that what they have in mind is the lack of it. And they're more likely to be talking about banks, priests, the beef industry or those who lurk at the crossroads between business and politics than about politicians.
Indeed, it looks as if politicians have begun to recover a reputation for dependability which most of them didn't deserve to lose. Most, but not all.
Eoghan Harris claims he's never met a corrupt politician above the level of county councillor. It must be lovely to have led such a sheltered life.
To judge by the polls, the Dail, Seanad and Westminster debates, not to mention reports from the United States, almost everyone seems to agree that political leaders, North and South, British and American, have come well out of the multi-party discussions on the future of Northern Ireland.
So, at last, has politics.
The agreement reached under the inspired leadership of George Mitchell has done much to repair the damage done by years of indifferent politics, smugness, begrudgery and leading from behind.
Some of that damage was self-inflicted, often inspired by cowardice. Much more was done by cheap jibes and lazy commentaries playing to the lowest common denominator.
Nor should we forget those who roared for the abolition of Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act so that they could meet Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams head-on - until the day came and they retreated to the sidelines.
Trust, a belief in the dependability of others, is a feature of any agreement and must be at the centre of the partnership for which many are now beginning to hope.
Such a partnership, guided by a recognition of inter-dependence, would extend beyond Northern Ireland and beyond this island to Scotland, Wales and the regions of England.
Trust, however, is essential. We've seen governments break down for lack of it. The agreement depends on it, in all of the relationships it's bound to affect - between governments, parties and the people they represent.
The agreement is only a beginning and far from perfect. How could it be otherwise? It leaves some hard moral and political questions to be answered, as Ruairi Quinn made plain the other day.
Such questions as differing public attitudes to the lives and fate of policemen, North and South, the importance attached to prisoners and the conditions on which they are released, demand to be addressed.
Pat Rabbitte's suggestion of a difference between the states, North and South, and the attitudes of those who live in them to their police forces and institutions, is not the whole answer.
The dilemma is real and hard and points to the need for a deeper understanding of the issues facing politicians and electorates than has so far been given them. If trust is to be won, it's essential that all voices be heard.
Boorishness and bullying may be the stock in trade of Ian Paisley, Bob McCartney and their mirror images in the ranks of nationalist fundamentalism. They represent constituencies which cannot be denied a hearing, unless they choose incitement to violence.
Democracy is an admirable theory; and statements extolling its merits are all very well. It's even better in practice, which is why the Freedom of Information Act, which became effective this week, is one of the most significant political developments of the past 10 years.
Those who worked so hard to have it passed by the Oireachtas deserve recognition for their imagination and courage. But Dick Spring is no longer leader of the Labour Party and Eithne Fitzgerald lost her seat.
Trust is built on openness and on consistency of a kind that some politicians find irksome.
It calls for institutions which don't block the way between governments and the people on whose behalf they act - as the European Union now recognises in the Amsterdam Treaty.
The Belfast Agreement has gone some way towards restoring the electorate's trust in politicians.
But, as if to prove that Pauline conversions to good sense and neighbourliness are rarely if ever complete, there have been some notable exceptions to the show of goodwill.
The bigger parties in the North acknowledged the contributions of the smaller groups - PUP, UDP, the Women's Coalition and Labour - to the multi-party negotiations. In the end, they left them to the mercy of the electorate.
My hope is that the electorate recognises not only their contributions to the success of the negotiations but the civilising effect they may have on the work of the Assembly.
This is not a sentimental wish, produced by the sound of new voices - voices echoing neither of the isms or their principal proponents. These voices are more valuable than many recognise - and not only because of their novelty.
It has proved to be so in the Republic where the Progressive Democrats, Democratic Left and the Green Party have made contributions out of all proportion to their size.
Freed of the stranglehold of Civil War rhetoric, they were able to lead both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in directions they might not have taken at a speed not contemplated for another 25 years.
In coalition with Labour or either of the smaller parties, FF and FG leaders found it was possible to make progress without losing anything but the dead weight of the past.
The Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrat coalition, in its own way, has cheered the democratic approach displayed in the Stormont talks, but shortchanged the electorate by holding two referendums on the same day.
Voices should be heard - smaller parties in the North, those who oppose the agreement North and South, the critics of the Amsterdam Treaty.
I am reminded of a sardonic response by one of the senior people in the Irish Press to an innocent query in the 1950s.
A fat script had arrived from James Dillon of Fine Gael. Should we run it? The senior man paused before replying that, yes, it should be run. Mr Dillon after all was entitled to his say. Briefly. Three thin paragraphs appeared.
There's trust for you!