The relationship between individuals and governing institutions is complex and often paradoxical. People seek protection, stability, and order—functions typically provided by governments—yet there is often a deep-seated distrust of authority, especially toward law enforcement agencies like the police. This tension raises critical questions: Why do people allow themselves to be governed, sometimes even demanding strong or authoritarian leadership? What does it mean when the government is said to have a “monopoly on violence,” and how does this concept affect public trust? Moreover, why is there a persistent conflict between the desire for security and the skepticism toward those empowered to provide it?

Understanding these questions involves delving into the psychological, social, and historical factors that lead people to accept and even demand governance, including authoritarian rule. Throughout history, individuals have sought protection from external threats, internal chaos, and the unpredictability of life. Governments have emerged as the primary institutions capable of providing this security.

One illustrative example comes from ancient history. In the Hebrew Bible, the Israelites, after a period of decentralized leadership under judges, asked the prophet Samuel for a king to lead them. “Now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have” (1 Samuel 8:5, NIV). Despite warnings about the potential tyranny of kings, the people desired centralized authority to ensure security and unity. This reflects a fundamental human inclination toward structured leadership during times of uncertainty.

An underlying fear of anarchy and disorder also drives people to accept strong governance. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in his 1651 work Leviathan, argued that in a state of nature without government, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes contended that people willingly surrender some freedoms to a sovereign authority to gain security and order—a concept known as the social contract.

Historical instances, such as the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte after the French Revolution (1789–1799), illustrate how populations may accept authoritarian regimes as preferable to prolonged instability. After years of political turmoil, economic hardship, and violence during the Reign of Terror, the French people were willing to accept Napoleon’s strong leadership. In 1799, he seized power in a coup d’état, eventually declaring himself Emperor in 1804. Napoleon promised stability, centralized administration, and legal reforms through the Napoleonic Code, which many citizens embraced despite the loss of certain freedoms.

Humans are inherently social beings who find comfort in structured hierarchies. Leadership provides direction and a sense of purpose. Even in small groups, leaders naturally emerge to coordinate efforts and resolve conflicts. Anthropological studies of early human societies show that hierarchical structures often developed for practical reasons such as resource management and defense. As societies grew more complex, these hierarchies became formalized into governmental institutions.

Governance often creates a shared sense of belonging and identity through symbols, laws, and traditions. The unification of disparate Italian states under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the mid-19th century is an example of leadership fostering national identity. Between 1860 and 1870, Garibaldi and other leaders worked toward Italian unification, appealing to shared language, culture, and history to bring together various states into a single nation.

Governance also allows individuals to delegate complex decision-making to leaders or institutions, freeing them to focus on personal and communal life. Ancient city-states like Athens and Sparta in Greece granted rulers significant power in exchange for managing resources, conflicts, and religious ceremonies. This delegation enabled societies to function more efficiently through specialization and division of labor.

The concept of the government’s monopoly on violence refers to the idea that the state is the sole entity within society legally permitted to use or authorize physical force. Sociologist Max Weber famously articulated this notion in his 1919 lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” stating:

“A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”
— Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (1919)

This exclusivity is intended to prevent vigilante justice and ensure that the use of force is regulated and accountable.

The state uses this monopoly to maintain law and order, enforce justice, and ensure societal stability. This includes policing, imprisonment, and, in some jurisdictions, capital punishment. The government’s monopoly on violence extends to defending its borders and interests through the military. Private militias or mercenary forces are typically regulated or prohibited to prevent challenges to state sovereignty. The government’s use of violence is constrained by laws, constitutions, and institutional oversight to prevent abuse, differentiating legitimate state actions from illegitimate violence by criminals or insurgents.

Despite the desire for protection and security from crime and violence, there is often significant distrust toward law enforcement institutions. This distrust is especially prevalent among marginalized communities. Historical abuses, systemic racism, corruption, and excessive use of force contribute to a lack of confidence in law enforcement.

For example, in the United States, the history of policing in African American communities is marred by discrimination and violence. The Rodney King incident in 1991 is a pivotal event that highlighted police brutality. King, an African American man, was severely beaten by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers after a high-speed chase. A bystander captured the incident on video, which sparked widespread outrage. When the officers were acquitted in 1992, it led to the Los Angeles riots, resulting in over 50 deaths and extensive property damage.

The war on drugs, initiated by President Richard Nixon in 1971 and intensified during the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, exemplifies how legislation can magnify issues of distrust. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 introduced mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. These laws disproportionately affected marginalized communities, particularly African Americans and Latinos. Despite similar rates of drug use across racial groups, minority populations were more likely to be arrested and receive harsher sentences.

Law enforcement agencies were incentivized to aggressively pursue drug offenses through federal funding and asset forfeiture programs. The militarization of police increased as departments acquired surplus military equipment through the Department of Defense’s 1033 program, established in the 1990s. This equipment included armored vehicles, assault rifles, and other military-grade hardware, which changed the dynamics of policing and often escalated confrontations.

Similarly, the war on terror, which intensified after the September 11, 2001, attacks, expanded the government’s surveillance and law enforcement capabilities. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 increased governmental powers to monitor, detain, and prosecute individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities. While intended to enhance national security, these measures raised concerns about civil liberties and the potential for abuse.

Communities, particularly Muslim Americans and immigrants, faced increased scrutiny and profiling. In 2011, the Associated Press revealed that the New York Police Department (NYPD) had conducted extensive surveillance of Muslim communities, including mosques, businesses, and student organizations, often without evidence of wrongdoing. Such practices strained relationships between law enforcement and the public, fostering mistrust.

The tough-on-crime approach of the 1980s and 1990s also influenced policing strategies. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, signed by President Bill Clinton, allocated $8.8 billion for prison construction and funded the hiring of 100,000 new police officers. It also included the federal “three strikes” provision, mandating life sentences for offenders convicted of a violent felony after two or more prior convictions. These policies led to mass incarceration, with the U.S. prison population increasing from around 500,000 in 1980 to over 2 million by 2000.

Emphasis on zero-tolerance policies and aggressive enforcement of minor offenses aimed to deter more serious crimes but often resulted in over-policing of certain communities. The “stop-and-frisk” practices in New York City during the 2000s disproportionately targeted young men of color. A 2013 study by the New York Civil Liberties Union found that in 2011, Black and Latino individuals accounted for 87% of those stopped, despite comprising about half of the city’s population.

These policies contributed to the militarization of the police, both in terms of equipment and mindset. The use of SWAT teams for routine police work increased dramatically. Criminologist Peter Kraska found that the number of SWAT deployments in the U.S. rose from a few hundred per year in the 1970s to around 50,000 by the mid-2000s. This shift not only changed how police looked but also how they interacted with communities, often escalating situations that might have been resolved through dialogue and de-escalation techniques.

To address the root causes of distrust, systemic reforms must go beyond individual officers or incidents. Reforming police training and practices is essential. Training programs should prioritize de-escalation techniques, cultural competence, and mental health crisis intervention. For example, the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) model, developed in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1988, trains officers to respond more effectively to individuals experiencing mental health crises, reducing the likelihood of violent outcomes.

Changing laws and policies is also crucial. Decriminalizing certain offenses, particularly non-violent drug offenses, can reduce unnecessary police interactions and incarceration rates. Several states have legalized or decriminalized marijuana, recognizing the disproportionate impact of drug laws on minority communities. Implementing clear, strict use-of-force policies with robust oversight can prevent excessive force incidents. The Obama Administration’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing in 2015 recommended practices such as requiring officers to intervene when they witness misconduct by colleagues.

Revising sentencing laws to eliminate mandatory minimums and reduce overly harsh penalties can address the consequences of the tough-on-crime era. The First Step Act of 2018, a bipartisan federal law, aimed to reduce sentences for certain offenses and improve conditions in federal prisons.

Demilitarizing the police by limiting the use of military-grade equipment can reduce the escalation of conflicts and improve community relations. In 2015, President Barack Obama issued an executive order restricting the transfer of certain military equipment to police departments. Although some of these restrictions were later rolled back, the debate highlighted concerns about the appropriate level of force in civilian policing.

Increasing accountability through establishing independent oversight agencies to investigate misconduct can enhance transparency and trust. Civilian review boards, such as the one in Philadelphia established in 1993, allow for community involvement in holding police accountable. Revising legal doctrines like qualified immunity, which shields officers from civil liability unless they violated “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights, is another area of reform. Critics argue that qualified immunity makes it too difficult to hold officers accountable for misconduct.

Rethinking public safety involves investing in social services, such as mental health professionals or social workers, to address issues traditionally handled by police but may be better served by specialists. Programs like CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) in Eugene, Oregon, dispatch mental health workers and medics to non-violent emergencies, reducing the burden on police and providing more appropriate care.

Focusing on education, economic opportunities, and healthcare can reduce crime by addressing underlying social determinants. Studies have shown that access to quality education and stable employment reduces the likelihood of criminal activity. The “Housing First” model, which provides housing to homeless individuals without preconditions, has been effective in reducing homelessness and related police interactions.

Engaging communities by building relationships through regular communication, involvement in local events, and collaborative problem-solving is vital. Community policing initiatives that involve residents in decision-making processes can enhance legitimacy and foster mutual respect. The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study in the 1930s and 1940s demonstrated the long-term benefits of community engagement in reducing delinquency.

Balancing safety and liberty involves understanding the social contract between individuals and the state. Citizens cede certain freedoms in exchange for protection and services provided by the government. They expect the state to use its monopoly on violence responsibly to protect their rights and safety. In return, the state is expected to be transparent and accountable, ensuring that its power is not abused.

As Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in 1963:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
— Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963)

The tension between the desire for security and the distrust of authority is rooted in complex historical, social, and systemic factors. Understanding why people allow themselves to be governed—and sometimes even demand authoritarian rule—requires an exploration of human needs for security, stability, and identity. The government’s monopoly on violence highlights its unique authority but also underscores the potential for abuse and the importance of accountability.

Addressing this tension necessitates systemic reforms that reimagine public safety, prioritize justice, and strengthen the social contract between citizens and their government. By reevaluating laws, training, policies, and community engagement, societies can work toward a model of governance that provides protection without compromising trust and legitimacy.

Rebuilding trust between communities and law enforcement requires a collective effort to redefine the relationship between individuals and the institutions designed to serve them. Recognizing past mistakes and actively working to prevent future ones is essential. As societies grapple with these challenges, the goal remains clear: to ensure that the quest for security does not come at the expense of justice and liberty.