Opinion | The line between authority and trust

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In Minneapolis, Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, was fatally shot during a federal immigration enforcement operation on Jan. 24. On Jan. 7, Renee Good, a mother and poet, was killed during a separate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation in the same city. These are not isolated tragedies. They are a civic alarm. If this is what state power looks like up close, what happens to our trust in government, and where does that take us?

Trust is the hidden foundation of leadership. It is what causes people to follow laws without constant force. It is what keeps societies stable when leaders falter. It is what allows citizens to accept short-term sacrifices, trusting in tomorrow. Every political system relies on some form of trust. But democracy and authoritarianism build it in fundamentally different ways.

In one system, trust is built through institutions. In the other, it is demanded through fear. That difference is not abstract. It shapes how power is exercised, how mistakes are corrected, and how societies respond when the state uses force.

I have lived under both systems. I know what it means to speak freely. I also know what it means to measure every sentence. I have seen how trust functions when it is voluntary and how it looks when it is performed. Those experiences sharpen a simple conclusion: The relationship between leaders and the public depends less on personality than on the architecture surrounding power.

In a democracy, trust works like a renewable contract. Leaders are not the state. They are temporary stewards of public authority. Legitimacy flows upward from citizens. Power is constrained by courts, legislatures, oversight bodies and a free press.

This kind of trust is not automatic. It must be earned. Leaders build it by telling hard truths, admitting errors and respecting limits on their power. Citizens, in turn, can criticize leaders without being treated as enemies.

The process is slow. It is noisy. It can feel frustrating. But it produces something essential: correction. Democracies can withstand flawed leadership because institutions outlast individuals. Peaceful turnover may be uneasy, but it is a core source of democratic stability.

Authoritarian systems reverse this logic. Power is personalized. Loyalty to the leader replaces accountability. Institutions that might restrain authority are weakened. Dissent becomes costly.

What appears to be trust in these systems is often compliance. Public displays of support replace genuine consent. Silence stands in for agreement.

When people fear punishment, public speech diverges from private belief. Politics becomes performance. Leaders hear praise instead of truth. Errors compound. Corruption spreads quietly. The system may appear stable — until it isn’t.

Democracies do not need strongmen. They need strong institutions. And they need citizens willing to defend them.

Trust is not a mood. It is an outcome. It is produced by rules, incentives and limits on power. Democracies cultivate trust by making authority replaceable. Authoritarian systems cultivate obedience by instilling fear of authority.

The choice societies face is not between order and chaos. It is between two kinds of trust. One is rooted in fear. The other is rooted in freedom.

Only one of them lasts. And in moments like this, Minnesotans are right to ask which kind we are building.