For much of the modern era, authority was largely a function of position. Governments, international organizations, major media outlets, and established institutions occupied a privileged place in public life because they were assumed to possess both expertise and legitimacy.
Their conclusions carried weight not only because of the evidence they presented but also because of who they were. Today, that assumption is increasingly being challenged.
Across much of the democratic world, public trust in institutions has declined. Surveys consistently show growing skepticism toward governments, political parties, traditional media, and, in many cases, international organizations.
The reasons are varied – political polarization, information overload, perceived bias, institutional failures, and the democratization of information through digital technology – but the consequence is clear: institutional authority no longer guarantees public trust.
Yet the erosion of trust in traditional institutions has not produced a vacuum.
People still need reliable information. Democracies still require trusted sources of knowledge. Public debate still depends on facts that can command broad credibility.
The question, therefore, is not whether authority disappears, but rather who earns it. The defining feature of today’s information environment is that credibility increasingly competes with hierarchy.
In a world saturated with information, the scarce resource is not access to data but confidence in its reliability.
As a result, authority is gradually shifting from those who merely possess institutional status to those who can demonstrate transparency, methodological rigor, and evidentiary integrity.
This represents a profound transformation in the nature of public influence and authority itself. Historically, institutions derived legitimacy from their formal roles.
Today, legitimacy must increasingly be earned through performance.
Citizens are less inclined to accept claims because they originate from a government, an international organization, or an established authority.
Instead, they ask different questions: How was the evidence collected? Can the methodology be scrutinized? Are the sources available for review? Can the conclusions withstand criticism?
In other words, public trust is becoming more evidence-based than title-based.
A shift in trust and credibility
What is emerging, therefore, is not only a shift in trust but also a shift in the very architecture of credibility.
This shift has created space for new actors to emerge. Independent investigative bodies, civil society organizations, research initiatives, and citizen-led commissions have begun to exercise influence once reserved almost exclusively for states and large institutions.
Their power does not derive from legal authority or political mandate. It derives from their ability to produce knowledge that others find credible.
This is not simply a diversification of voices. It is a restructuring of the field in which authority is produced.
This transformation is especially significant in the realm of public diplomacy. For generations, states were the principal architects of international narratives. Governments communicated, international organizations validated, and the public consumed information through relatively centralized channels.
Today, however, narratives compete in a decentralized information ecosystem. Public understanding is shaped not only by states but also by researchers, civil society organizations, investigative networks, and independent experts.
In such an environment, influence depends less on institutional rank and more on evidentiary strength.
This is why the production of a credible evidentiary record has become a strategic act in itself. The ability to gather, preserve, verify, and present facts is no longer merely an academic exercise. It is a form of public leadership.
AGAINST THIS backdrop, the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes Against Women and Children represents a concrete example of how independent actors are increasingly participating in the production of authoritative public knowledge.
The Commission was not established by virtue of governmental authority, nor does it derive its legitimacy from political power.
Rather, its contribution lies in its effort to assemble, preserve, analyze, and present a comprehensive evidentiary record concerning one of the most contested and consequential issues arising from the events of October 7.
Its significance lies not only in its findings but also in what its emergence signals about the changing architecture of public credibility.
In entering a domain traditionally dominated by states and major international institutions, the Commission reflects a broader shift: the opening of authoritative space to actors whose influence is not granted from above but built from the bottom up through evidentiary work.
Its authority rests not on institutional status but on methodology, rigor, and the strength of the evidence it assembles.
The significance of independent commissions and civil society investigations should therefore be understood within this broader transformation.
Their contribution lies not only in the conclusions they reach but also in the evidentiary infrastructure they create.
By assembling documentation, preserving testimony, identifying patterns, and exposing findings to public scrutiny, they build a foundation upon which public understanding can be formed and contested.
This is not an abstract concern. It becomes most visible in moments where trust itself is under strain. Today, as we present the Civil Commission Report on the sexual violence of October 7th at the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Annual Discussion on Women’s Rights, this is especially evident.
Few crimes test public trust more profoundly than conflict-related sexual violence. Evidence is often fragmented, victims may be unable or unwilling to testify publicly, and political interests can shape both investigations and public perceptions.
In such circumstances, authority alone is insufficient. Institutions must also demonstrate transparency, rigor, and credibility. The challenge is not merely to establish facts but to earn public confidence in the process through which those facts are documented and verified.
Where trust is fragile, transparency becomes essential. Where authority is contested, evidence becomes decisive.
The emerging reality does not mean that governments and international institutions are becoming irrelevant. Far from it. They remain indispensable actors in democratic societies and international affairs.
But they no longer enjoy a monopoly on credibility.
The future will likely belong to institutions, whether public, private, or civic, that can combine authority with demonstrable trustworthiness.
Those who rely solely on status may find their influence diminished. Those who embrace transparency, methodological rigor, and accountability may discover that credibility can be earned even without formal power.
The central question of our age is therefore not who possesses authority. It is who can persuade others that their authority is deserved.
In an age of contested facts, credibility belongs not to those who speak the loudest or occupy the highest office, but to those willing to show their work. When the truth itself is disputed, evidence becomes more than documentation; it becomes the foundation of public trust.
The writer is the co-founder and CEO of the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children.