Authoritarianism is badly named. It invites confusion between legitimate authority and arbitrary power. This confusion has caused harm, because the reaction against authoritarianism can cause people to reject valuable guidance from true authorities. Society benefits from individuals and institutions that become authorities of various kinds, by adhering to high standards. They deserve support.

Part and parcel of the authoritarian program is the undermining or dismantling of legitimate sources of authority, which are viewed as potential threats. We see this with Putin installing a puppet to lead the Russian Orthodox Church, the Chinese Communist Party insisting on their own choice of successor to the Dalai Lama, or Trump putting RFK Jr. in charge of HHS and Pete Hegseth in charge of the military, to dismantle them as authoritative sources of information that may differ from the administration. Institutions that are sources of religious, scientific, economic, or moral authority need to be subsumed or delegitimized so that they can’t be a resource for people to challenge the arbitrary exercise of power.

It is easy to tell the difference between legitimate and illegitimate authority. People usually have good instincts for making this distinction. Legitimate authorities never claim infallibility, always seek correction and accountability, show their work, invite questions, never personalize issues, and refute opposing views with data and civility, not bluster. Authoritarians do the opposite.

We need to build and elevate civic institutions that gain legitimate authority through demonstrated excellence, integrity, and accountability. But in the building of these institutions, we must never give them the power of law. Because once so empowered, the temptation to bypass the rigor of true legitimacy is too great, and even well-intentioned people become corrupted, as has been demonstrated many times.