Legitimacy, Trust and Institutional Pressure: Reflections from Future of Governance 2026

How do institutions maintain credibility in increasingly fragmented societies?

One of the conversations that resonated strongly during this year’s Future of Governance International Conference 2026 explored a question that sits increasingly at the intersection of governance, public leadership and business strategy: how do institutions preserve legitimacy in a period marked by declining trust, geopolitical pressure and rising societal polarization?

The panel, moderated by Ștefan Nanu, brought together Tina Fordham and Bogdan Chirițoiu for a discussion that moved between global geopolitical dynamics and the more practical realities of institutional leadership in Romania and Europe.

Introducing the conversation, Nanu framed the discussion around what he described as a visible erosion of confidence in institutions across many democratic societies, referring to OECD data showing particularly low levels of trust in government and parliament in Romania.  He noted that legitimacy today is increasingly tested not only through institutional performance, but also through the ability of institutions to maintain public confidence during periods of uncertainty and pressure.

The discussion quickly expanded beyond the Romanian context, however, toward a broader question about how legitimacy functions today — and what happens when institutional authority is no longer automatically accepted.

From institutional authority to earned legitimacy

One of the themes that emerged early in the discussion was the gradual weakening of what might once have been considered “automatic legitimacy.”

Fordham spoke about the broader international decline in trust across governments, media and public institutions, accelerated further by the pandemic and by the cumulative effect of overlapping crises over the past decade.  

Reflecting on the shifting relationship between citizens and institutions, she observed that trust can no longer be treated as a static asset. Institutions are now required to explain themselves continuously in a much more emotionally charged and politically fragmented environment.

“The assumptions we built many of our institutions around no longer hold in quite the same way,” Fordham noted during the discussion.  

At the same time, she observed that the pandemic also shifted perceptions around leadership itself. In many countries, business organizations were suddenly expected not only to maintain operations, but also to communicate clearly, provide stability and make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. As a result, parts of the private sector emerged from that period with higher levels of public trust than many institutions had anticipated.  

The implication was not that companies should replace governments, but that leadership responsibilities are becoming more distributed across society. Boards, executives and institutions increasingly operate in a space where public expectations extend beyond technical performance alone.

Bogdan Chirițoiu approached the issue from a more institutional and local perspective. Romania, he noted, has historically functioned as a relatively low-trust society, particularly in relation to public institutions. In his view, this partly explains why periods of instability or political turbulence are sometimes absorbed differently in Romania than in societies that became accustomed to decades of institutional predictability.

He also reflected on how attitudes toward European institutions have evolved. For many years, European legitimacy carried significant implicit authority in Romania. Policies associated with Brussels often benefited from a degree of public acceptance that required relatively little additional explanation. “That used to end the conversation,” Chirițoiu remarked, referring to the once-common institutional argument that a decision reflected European rules or standards.  

That relationship, he suggested, has changed considerably. European institutions and regulators increasingly need to justify decisions not only through technical correctness, but also through transparency, clarity of purpose and visible public value. Simply invoking institutional authority no longer settles the conversation in the way it once did.  

The tension between speed and trust

A significant part of the discussion focused on the growing pressure placed on institutions to respond quickly during crises while still preserving procedural legitimacy and public confidence.

This tension has become visible across multiple domains in recent years, from public health and regulation to economic policy and security. Nanu raised the question directly during the discussion, asking whether democratic systems can still maintain legitimacy while operating at the speed increasingly demanded by public opinion and geopolitical pressure.  

Chirițoiu acknowledged that democratic systems are often criticized for moving too slowly, particularly when compared to more centralized political models. At the same time, he argued that institutional friction and procedural safeguards exist for a reason, especially in systems designed to balance speed with accountability.  “There is a reason why democratic systems are sometimes slower,” he noted, emphasizing the importance of checks, procedures and institutional review mechanisms.  

Fordham connected this pressure to a broader geopolitical shift. Many organizations and institutions, she suggested, continue to rely on assumptions formed during the unusually stable period that followed the end of the Cold War — a period that now appears less like the norm and more like a historical exception.  

Part of the difficulty today comes from the fact that institutions are adapting to a world that has changed faster than many governance systems were designed to accommodate.

Europe between regulation and competitiveness

The panel also addressed Europe’s increasingly complex position in the current geopolitical environment.

Fordham referred to the pressure Europe faces as it tries to preserve institutional standards and democratic safeguards while also responding to growing geopolitical competition, technological dependency and economic fragmentation.  

Many of the debates currently taking place across Europe — around strategic autonomy, AI regulation, industrial policy, digital sovereignty or defense capabilities — reflect this broader attempt to reconcile openness with resilience.

Chirițoiu added a more pragmatic dimension to this discussion by pointing to Europe’s structural challenges around market integration and access to capital. In his view, some of Europe’s difficulties stem less from overregulation itself and more from the absence of sufficiently integrated financial and economic systems capable of scaling European companies competitively.  

The conversation suggested that legitimacy and institutional effectiveness are becoming increasingly interconnected. Public trust depends not only on values and transparency, but also on institutions’ ability to deliver outcomes in a more demanding and competitive environment.

Leadership in a more uncertain environment

Another recurring theme throughout the panel was the changing nature of leadership itself.

Both speakers referred, in different ways, to the growing difficulty of governing institutions in environments shaped by uncertainty, rapid information flows and fragmented authority.

Fordham returned several times to the importance of what she calls “Political Quotient” — the ability of leaders to understand how geopolitical developments, public sentiment and institutional legitimacy increasingly shape operational and economic realities.  

Chirițoiu, meanwhile, reflected on the declining automatic authority of expertise in an environment where institutions are increasingly challenged to explain and defend decisions continuously, often in real time.  

The discussion did not arrive at simple conclusions. If anything, it highlighted how difficult institutional leadership has become in societies where expectations are rising while trust remains fragile.

Nanu returned near the end of the panel to the broader question underlying the discussion: whether institutions can continue to preserve trust in societies increasingly shaped by volatility, political fragmentation and economic anxiety. Fordham’s answer was direct: survival. Not only geopolitical survival, but the ability of institutions themselves to remain functional, credible and socially cohesive under mounting pressure.

At the same time, the discussion avoided a fatalistic tone. Both speakers suggested, in different ways, that legitimacy is still recoverable — but that it increasingly depends on institutional behavior, consistency, communication and the ability to maintain integrity under pressure.

The panel reflected many of the broader themes explored throughout Future of Governance International Conference 2026: the relationship between leadership and trust, the pressure placed on democratic institutions, and the growing realization that governance today extends far beyond formal systems and procedures.

The conference is part of the broader ecosystem developed by Envisia  which includes executive education programs, governance initiatives and the Envisia Connect community platform dedicated to board members, senior executives and governance professionals.

Share on: Facebook Linkedin