Power is born from necessity, but it often grows
into domination. Security forces have been at the forefront of protecting the people and maintaining the regime since the beginning of governments. The blurring of police and military lines erodes public trust, ignites protests, and tests legitimacy. In this digital era, we face a defining
question: who does power truly serve the state or its citizens?
From
Power to Purpose
Shaping Governance for Public Happiness in the
Digital Era
The Origins
of Power
The emergence of governments can be traced
back to the increasing complexity and size of human societies, which
necessitated a central authority to adjudicate disputes, allocate resources,
and protect territorial integrity. The transition from decentralised governance
to centralised power led to the establishment of police and military forces,
which evolved from their initial role of protecting citizens to become
instruments of regime preservation and stability. As state functions matured,
police and military units began to intersect more frequently, intertwining
power with fear and security in modern governance frameworks.
During the historical transition towards
modern nation-states, police forces initially shared overlapping roles with
military operations. Lutterbeck's analysis highlights transformation, noting
that the distinct functions of police and military forces began to blur,
particularly with the emergence of late or postmodern governance structures
(Lutterbeck, 2005). As nations faced complex internal and external threats, the
roles of policing and military were redefined, leading to what some researchers
describe as an integrated security approach (Lutterbeck, 2004).
The relationship between public Trust and
police legitimacy is further complicated by how citizens perceive the
government's overall performance. Research indicates that factors such as
governmental responsiveness, legitimacy, and economic conditions significantly
influence public assessments of police effectiveness (Sun et al., 2013). The
legitimacy of police as an institution cannot be separated from the broader
governance context; failing to address underlying issues of Trust leads to
detrimental consequences for public safety and community cooperation
(Goldsmith, 2005). Thus, police forces, while fundamentally tasked with law
enforcement, also contribute significantly to the development of state-citizen
relations within increasingly complex public governance.
Moreover, the militarisation of police
forces mirrors a worldwide trend where domestic policing increasingly employs
military-style tactics, obfuscating the distinction between upholding public
order and handling perceived external threats. For example, Meliala describes
Indonesia's approach, emphasising the rise of paramilitary policing, which is
characterised by authoritarian structures aimed at ensuring control and order
(Meliala, 2001). The shift towards militarisation raises crucial ethical
concerns about human rights, particularly as it often coincides with diminished
civil liberties and an erosion of democratic principles (Flores‐Macías & Zarkin, 2023).
Additionally, the concept of police
militarisation effectively embodies the problematic convergence identified in
several studies. Campbell and Campbell illustrate the evolving role of police
officers who increasingly adopt military roles in their enforcement strategies,
creating a complex image of law enforcement as both protector and enforcer of
state authority (Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Evolution can distort the
perceived role of police, shifting from community-focused caretakers to
enforcers of a regime, thereby complicating their public perception and
legitimacy.
The origins of modern governance are rooted
in the evolution of state authority, which is intertwined with power, fear, and
security. The bifurcation and subsequent convergence of police and military
functions, alongside the factors affecting public Trust, highlight the
complexities inherent in contemporary governance landscapes. Policymakers must
navigate these dynamics carefully to establish a governance model that fosters
public Trust while ensuring adequate security and justice.
The Crisis
of Trust
In the current landscape, the demand for fairness, dignity, and representation
from governments has become increasingly vocal, particularly in the context of
societal unrest and mass protests. A crucial factor in the breakdown of public Trust
is the government's failure to meet these socio-political expectations.
Research indicates that corruption, economic inequality, and systemic
repression are significant contributors to public frustration, often
culminating in mass mobilisations, such as those observed during the Arab
Spring and China's recent protests over land and labour disputes
(Zárate-Tenorio, 2014; Chan, 2010). These events have underscored a common
sentiment among citizens: the desire for their voices to be amplified and for
their rights to be acknowledged and protected.
The trust crisis manifests when citizens
perceive a disconnect between governmental actions and their demands for
accountability and representation. A lack of transparent processes and
accountability mechanisms can erode public Trust, indicating a "vicious
circle" where decreasing Trust leads to diminished government legitimacy,
potentially sparking further protests and instability (Hyndman &
McConville, 2018; Goldsmith, 2005). As noted in extensive research across
various case studies, the public's perception of governmental accountability has
a direct influence on their levels of Trust. For instance, citizens believe
that transparency in governance correlates positively with public Trust,
establishing that societal expectations align closely with the accountability
demonstrated by those in power (Beshi & Kaur, 2019; Prasetya, 2023).
Moreover, mass protests during periods of
economic distress or political corruption can be understood as forms of
collective resistance that challenge the existing social contract. Scholars
have emphasised that citizens will mobilise against governmental actions
perceived as unfair, especially when there is a tangible threat to their
economic wellbeing (Charm, 2024; Chan, 2010). Research indicates that a
government's responsiveness to public grievances plays a crucial role in
preventing escalations into widespread unrest (Kim et al., 2020; Ragolane &
Malatji, 2024). Thus, the dynamics of Trust and governance in the modern era
suggest that governments need to actively engage with and respond to citizen
demands to mitigate the risks of unrest.
The implications of these dynamics are
significant, particularly for the role of law enforcement during protests.
Studies have demonstrated that policing strategies perceived as aggressive or
repressive can exacerbate the crisis of Trust and lead to further alienation of
the populace (Gillham et al., 2013; Sombatpoonsiri, 2017). In contrast,
approaches that balance the needs of law enforcement with the rights of
protesters can enhance police legitimacy and reduce public distrust (Goldsmith,
2005). The relationship between governance, policing, and public perception is
crucial for maintaining stability and ensuring that societal needs are
addressed in a constructive manner.
The crisis of Trust in contemporary
governance is closely tied to the failure of governments to fulfil citizens'
desires for security, fairness, and representation. Protests emerge as a
poignant response to governance failures and systemic injustices, underscoring
the importance of maintaining a robust social contract founded on
accountability and Trust. By fostering transparent governance practices and
responsive policing, governments can mitigate risks of unrest and rebuild
public Trust.
The Digital
Crossroads
In the digital era, the transformation of
power dynamics in governance is increasingly evident as technologies such as
artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and big data provide governments with
enhanced capabilities to monitor, predict, and influence citizens. The technological
revolution has led to the emergence of three potential governance models: digital
authoritarianism, reform and transparency, and civic hybrid models. The
pathways nations choose in implementing these technologies will significantly
shape their societal structures for future generations.
Digital authoritarianism represents a
governance model where technology is harnessed to bolster state control and
suppress dissent. A model can manifest through extensive surveillance systems,
the use of big data analytics to predict and preempt social unrest, and the
manipulation of public discourse via information control (Piotrowski, 2016; Redden,
2018). Governments may exploit these technologies to limit freedoms and enforce
compliance, particularly in regimes with a history of repression and political
instability. Research demonstrates that as governments adopt data-driven
governance strategies, the potential for abuse of power increases, particularly
if there are inadequate checks on governmental authority (Ha, 2024).
In contrast, the Reform & Transparency
model utilises digital tools to enhance government accountability, promote
citizen engagement, and enhance service delivery. By using open data
technologies for initiatives, governments can foster transparency and empower
citizens to hold public officials accountable for their actions (Chen &
Ganapati, 2021; Mees & Driessen, 2018). Such reforms help to diminish
corruption and restore public Trust in state institutions. Studies have shown
that increased transparency in governmental operations correlates with higher
levels of public Trust (Niu, 2022; Grimmelikhuijsen & Feeney, 2016).
Additionally, applying data-driven governance to streamline administrative
processes has been shown to enhance efficiency and accessibility of public
services, thereby promoting a more inclusive approach to governance (Katapally
& Ibrahim, 2023).
The Civic Hybrid Model is an amalgamation
of the two previous approaches, emphasising shared decision-making between
governments and communities. The model recognises the importance of citizen
input in governance while simultaneously utilising digital tools to facilitate
collaborative processes (Chien & Thanh, 2022; Darusalam et al., 2023).
Local governments adopting a hybrid approach often implement participatory
budgeting, neighbourhood planning, and community monitoring systems that allow
for a more democratic governance framework (Setyawan, 2024). By integrating
citizen perspectives through digital platforms, governments can better align
their policies with the needs and values of their constituents, ultimately creating
an atmosphere of ownership and accountability.
The choices made by nations today regarding
these digital governance models will undoubtedly have profound implications for
societal structure and citizen engagement in the years to come. The quest for
balance between security and freedom, control, and empowerment is pivotal as
countries navigate the complexities of the digital landscape. Policymakers must
critically evaluate existing technologies and their potential impacts, striving
for a governance model that prioritises human dignity and equitable
representation while safeguarding against the risks of authoritarianism.
In conclusion, the digital crossroads
present a critical juncture for governance in the 21st century. The paths
chosen—whether towards digital authoritarianism, reform and transparency, or
civic hybrid models—will shape the contours of society and democratic
engagement, defining the relationship between the state and citizens for
generations.
Future Pathways to 2050
By 2050, global governance will be shaped by
how we integrate technology, democracy, and human values. If digital
tools are weaponised, authoritarian regimes will dominate, eroding freedoms. If
transparency prevails, digital democracy can flourish, fostering greater
equity and Trust. Hybrid governance models may emerge, blending centralised
authority with community-driven decision-making processes. The coming decades
will test humanity's collective wisdom and redefine the meaning of citizenship.
As we approach 2050, the interplay between
technology, democratic governance, and human values will critically define the
future of global governance. Digital tools have the potential to profoundly
reshape societies, ushering in varied governance models: digital
authoritarianism, reform and transparency, and civic hybrid models. The
trajectory nations take in utilising these technologies will likely determine
the nature of citizenship and the degree of freedom and equity experienced by
their populations.
In a scenario of digital authoritarianism,
governments might weaponise digital technologies to enhance their control and
suppress dissent. Such regimes utilise advanced surveillance capabilities,
AI-driven predictive analytics, and social media manipulation, resulting in a
significant erosion of civil liberties and freedoms (Indama, 2022; Li et al.,
2023). The perils inherent in models have been extensively highlighted,
indicating that unchecked technological power could result in oppressive
regimes dominating the global landscape. Instances of surveillance capitalism
have raised concerns about privacy and the potential for autocratic governance
to be facilitated through digital means.
Conversely, governments could choose a path
characterised by reform and transparency, embracing digital technologies to
enhance governance quality and citizen engagement. The approach centres on
enhancing transparency, promoting accountability, and encouraging participation
in decision-making processes (Bokhtiar et al., 2023; Hartanti et al., 2021).
Trust in governmental institutions is crucial, as evidenced by research
indicating that effective governance during crises, such as the COVID-19
pandemic, can enhance public Trust (Goldfinch et al., 2021). Strategies that
prioritise transparency, such as open data initiatives and participatory
governance models, are likely to encourage citizen involvement and improve
public Trust, thereby reinforcing the social contract between the state and its
citizens (Lee, 2021; Amosun et al., 2021).
The Civic Hybrid Model may emerge as a
solution that integrates elements from both authoritarian and democratic
frameworks. The model emphasises a collaborative approach to governance, where
state authorities and citizens participate jointly in decision-making processes
(Dananjoyo & Udin, 2023). By combining centralised governance with
community-driven strategies, hybrid models could facilitate a more inclusive
dialogue that addresses local needs while maintaining broader governance
structures. An approach can bridge the gap between government action and
community needs, leveraging technology to empower civic engagement and enhance
the perceived legitimacy of governance (Lusianti et al., 2024). The cultivation
of citizen trust in digital services is fundamental to the model, as Trust is a
critical determinant of citizen engagement and satisfaction in innovative
government services (Amosun et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2022).
The coming decades will pose significant
challenges as societies navigate these various pathways. The integration of
technology into governance will test humanity's collective wisdom and ethical
standards. The decisions made by political leaders regarding the use and
regulation of digital tools will have far-reaching consequences for the
freedoms, rights, and responsibilities of citizens, ultimately redefining what
it means to participate in a democratic society (Rozek et al., 2021).
In conclusion, by 2050, the governance
landscape will be shaped by how effectively societies strike a balance between
leveraging technology for empowerment and upholding democratic principles. The
outcome of these choices could profoundly influence the nature of freedom and
equity on a global scale, highlighting the urgent need for thoughtful
approaches that consider both technological innovations and fundamental human
values.
Possible
Futures
As we approach 2050, three distinct
scenarios emerge for the possible futures of governance, each shaping the
relationship between technology, authority, and citizen engagement:
Authoritarian Dominance, Digital Democracy, and Civic Hybridisation.
Understanding these scenarios is crucial for assessing how technology can be
leveraged to either empower or oppress populations.
Scenario 1: Authoritarian Dominance. In scenario, governments leverage advanced
technologies, such as AI-driven surveillance systems and predictive policing,
to consolidate power. trend could lead
to a society where citizens willingly sacrifice their privacy for perceived
security benefits. The implementation of these technologies enables states to
maintain a form of stability; however, stability often comes at a cost to
personal freedoms and rights. There is a significant risk that continuous
monitoring and data collection foster a climate of fear, leading to silent
dissatisfaction among the populace. As public happiness declines, discontent can
grow beneath the surface, potentially destabilising the regime in the long
term, despite short-term order being maintained. The phenomenon highlights a
critical tension between security and autonomy, suggesting that while
governments may effectively control populations through technology, the
societal implications are often detrimental to the overall wellbeing of
citizens.
Scenario 2: Digital Democracy
Conversely, the Digital Democracy scenario presents a more optimistic view of
technology as a catalyst for empowerment. In cases where digital platforms
enable citizens to participate actively in the policymaking process, they
promote transparency and accountability. By facilitating open communication and
collaborative efforts, governments can foster an environment where public Trust
flourishes. The use of digital tools as mechanisms for civic engagement
signifies a paradigm shift wherein citizens feel a sense of ownership over
governance outcomes. When well-implemented, a model could prioritise public
happiness as a key metric for governance success, resulting in policies that
better reflect the needs and desires of the population. Notably, increased Trust
in governmental institutions correlates with the use of participatory
mechanisms, suggesting that empowered citizens are more likely to view their
governments in a positive light.
Scenario 3: Civic Hybridisation. The civic
hybridisation model suggests a balance between centralised government authority
and localised decision-making. By integrating digital
tools to support community agency within a national framework, the scenario
encourages diverse, inclusive, and resilient governance structures. Communities
are empowered to address their unique challenges while still maintaining
cohesion and alignment with national policies. The model recognises the
importance of both direct citizen engagement and the need for governance to
adapt to local contexts, thereby fostering a more democratic and participatory
approach. As communities gain autonomy in decision-making processes, the
resulting governance can better respond to local needs while fostering a sense
of belonging and connection within the broader state framework.
Ultimately, the paths chosen as we approach
2050 will have lasting implications for global governance and the meaning of
citizenship. The challenge for policymakers lies in navigating these various
scenarios to harness technology for the public good while safeguarding
individual freedoms. The choices made in the critical period could define
societal relationships for generations, prompting a reevaluation of democracy,
human values, and the role of technology in governance.
The Roadmap
to Public Happiness
To build better governments, we must redefine
what success means. Economic growth alone cannot measure progress; citizen
happiness, dignity, and Trust must also lead. Transparency should be the
default; every budget and decision must be open to scrutiny. Digital tools must
empower people, not silence them. Governments must act as facilitators, not
rulers, enabling citizens to participate actively in shaping their futures.
To build better governments, a
comprehensive roadmap that redefines success beyond mere economic growth is
imperative. Necessitates placing citizen happiness, dignity, and trust at the
forefront of governance metrics. Such a shift requires a commitment to
transparency, where governmental budgets and decisions are subjected to public
scrutiny, ensuring accountability in the decision-making process. Digital tools
must be leveraged not as instruments of control but as means to empower
citizens, facilitating their active participation in shaping their futures.
The integration of citizen
happiness as a key indicator of governmental success
aligns with growing global trends towards understanding wellbeing as central to
policy outcomes. According to Sollis et al., movements such as Australia's Wellbeing
Framework aim to redirect policymaking towards enhancing individual and
community wellbeing, advocating for metrics that resonate more with public
values than traditional economic indicators like GDP. Sollis et al. (2025)
emphasise the need for governments to create environments where citizens feel
valued. Their voices matter, fundamentally altering the relationship between
the state and the populace.
In context, transparency
should not just be an aspiration but the default mode of governance. Increased
transparency has been shown to bolster public Trust and engagement, which are
critical for a functioning democracy. By ensuring that budgets and
decision-making processes are transparent and accessible to the public,
governments can foster spaces for open dialogue and meaningful participation.
Wamsler discusses how building collaborative relationships between officials
and citizens can transform governance, particularly in addressing complex
challenges such as climate change (Wamsler, 2016). Collaboration fosters a
sense of ownership among citizens, encouraging them to contribute to governance
rather than passively receive decisions made by state authorities.
Furthermore, the role of digital
tools in governance cannot be overstated. E-government
initiatives, as discussed by Máchová and Lněnička, highlight the importance of
utilising technology to enhance citizen engagement and streamline governmental
processes (Máchová & Lněnička, 2016). Digital platforms can facilitate
greater communication between governments and citizens, offering avenues for
input and feedback that were previously unavailable. Empowerment is critically important,
as it allows for a more responsive government and reinforces the social
contract between the state and its citizens, leading to greater accountability
and transparency (Thoa & Cuong, 2024).
Governments must also embrace a facilitative
approach, acting as enablers rather than rulers. Involves shifting power
dynamics to enable citizens to take an active role in decision-making,
particularly at local levels where community knowledge and needs can be better
addressed. Research indicates that decentralised governance structures
incorporating community input can enhance resilience and adaptability in policy
implementation (Mees et al., 2019; Klein et al., 2016). By recognising citizens
as co-creators of governance, policies can be more effectively tailored to meet
the diverse needs of the population.
The roadmap to public happiness requires a
transformative shift in governance that prioritises wellbeing, embraces
transparency, empowers citizens through technology, and adopts a facilitative
role for governments. A holistic approach ensures that governance is not only
about maintaining order but also about enhancing the quality of life for all
citizens, ultimately leading to a more engaged, satisfied, and trusting
populace.
A Call to Leaders and Citizens
To pave the way for a brighter future in
governance, a profound transformation is essential—one in which both leaders
and citizens share a sense of responsibility. As articulated in the call to
action for leaders, there is an urgent need to adopt participatory models that
prioritise ethics-driven policies alongside measurable progress in areas such
as Trust, rather than merely focusing on power or control.
Leaders' Responsibilities
Leaders are called to foster participatory
governance models, which enable more inclusive decision-making processes.
According to Nabatchi and Amsler, direct public engagement in local government
settings greatly enhances transparency and fosters a sense of belonging among
constituents (Nabatchi & Amsler, 2014). A participatory approach is crucial,
as it allows citizens to voice their opinions and influence public policies
that directly affect their lives. By prioritising citizen engagement, leaders
can cultivate a more equitable and responsive governance structure that
reflects the diverse needs and aspirations of the populace (Kim & Lee,
2012).
Moreover, leaders must establish a culture
of transparency. The research by Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer supports the
notion that greater transparency enhances the perceived trustworthiness of
government organisations (Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2012). Transparency
can be operationalised through open-access policies regarding budgets and
governmental decisions, thereby allowing citizens not only to scrutinise but
also to participate effectively in the governance process. In light of
declining Trust in governmental institutions, such transparency is essential
for rebuilding the social contract between the state and its citizens.
Citizens' Engagement
For citizens, engaging in active civic
participation is pivotal. By participating in governance, whether through
public forums or digital platforms, citizens can hold their leaders accountable
and influence decision-making processes (Aman & Jan, 2022). Such engagement
enhances the legitimacy of governmental actions and cultivates a sense of
ownership over policy outcomes. In an era increasingly dominated by technology,
e-participation initiatives facilitate engagement by providing platforms for
citizens to contribute their ideas and perspectives transparently (Ponte et
al., 2016). As highlighted by Kim and Lee, overcoming barriers to accessing
policy information is critical for effective citizen participation (Kim &
Lee, 2012).
Furthermore, citizens should demand that
technology serve humanity rather than control it. The rise of digital platforms
presents unprecedented opportunities for connection and participation; however,
they must be designed to empower users rather than manipulate them. As noted by
Desouza and Bhagwatwar, leveraging information technologies for citizen
engagement in governance can address complex urban challenges more effectively
through collaborative decision-making processes (Desouza & Bhagwatwar,
2012). Citizens must remain vigilant and proactive in ensuring that these
systems reflect democratic ideals and prioritise the public good.
A Shared Vision
Together, leaders and citizens can build
governments grounded in Trust, compassion, and purpose. endeavour prioritises people over power and
emphasises collective wellbeing. A commitment to ethics-driven governance
complements the principle of shared responsibility, a concept supported by
evidence that underscores the importance of Trust in shaping effective public
administration (Siebers et al., 2019). It is a shared vision that can catalyse
the evolution of governance into a more inclusive, responsive, and ultimately
happier society.
In conclusion, the future path of
governance depends on mutual engagement between leaders and citizens. By
embracing participatory models, championing transparency, and harnessing
technology for empowerment, we can collectively reshape the governance landscape
to reflect the ideals of Trust and shared responsibility. As we stand on the
precipice of change, let us move forward together towards a future where
governance truly serves the people.
"The future of governance will not be defined by how
tightly authorities hold onto power but by how boldly they open space for their
people. Through transparency, technology, and participation, we can shift from
ruling by control to governing with purpose: prioritizing public happiness. The
world is changing, and only the nations that put humanity above power will lead
the next chapter of civilization."
REFERENCE
Aman, S., & Jan,
M. A. (2022). Are we moving towards a managerial model of e-governance? Building
a Case for Citizen-Centric E-Participation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 3(1), 500-523.
https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.jhsms/3.1.35
Amosun, T. S., Chu,
J., Rufai, O. H., Muhideen, S., Shahani, R., & Gonlepa, M. K. (2021). Does
e-government help shape citizens' engagement during the COVID-19 crisis? A
study of the mediational effects of how citizens perceive the government.
Online Information Review, 46(5), 846-866.
https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-10-2020-0478
Beshi, T. D., &
Kaur, R. (2019). Public Trust in Local Government: Explaining the Role of Good
Governance Practices. Public Organisation Review, 20(2), 337-350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-019-00444-6
Bokhtiar, S. M.,
Islam, S. M. F., Molla, M. M. U., Salam, M. A., & Rashid, M. A. (2023).
Demand for and supply of pulses and oil crops in Bangladesh: A strategic
projection for the outlook of these food items by 2030 and 2050.
Sustainability, 15(10), 8240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108240
Campbell, D. J.,
& Campbell, K. (2009). Soldiers as police officers/police officers as
soldiers: Role evolution and revolution in the United States. Armed Forces
& Society, 36(2), 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x09335945
Chan, V. C. Y.
(2010). Explanations for mass provincial protests in China. The Eagle Feather,
(nan), nan. https://doi.org/10.12794/tef.2010.65
Charm, T. (2024).
Beliefs, strategic interaction, and Hong Kong's anti-extradition law movement:
A game-theoretic analysis. Rationality and Society, 37(1), 35-64.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631241274899
Chen, C., &
Ganapati, S. (2021). Do transparency mechanisms reduce government corruption? A
meta-analysis. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(1), 257-272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211033236
Chien, N. B., &
Thanh, N. N. (2022). The Impact of Good Governance on People's Satisfaction
with Public Administrative Services in Vietnam. Administrative Sciences, 12(1),
35. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010035
Dananjoyo, R., &
Udin, U. (2023). The effect of sustainable brand equity on customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty using customer trust as a mediation variable.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 18(7),
2281-2291. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180733
Darusalam, D.,
Janssen, M., Said, J., Sanusi, Z. M., & Omar, N. (2023). An evaluation
framework for the impact of digitalisation on the quality of governance.
International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 10(1),
2021-01-01 00:00:00. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.332880
Desouza, K. C.,
& Bhagwatwar, A. (2012). Citizen apps to solve complex urban problems.
Journal of Urban Technology, 19(3), 107-136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.673056
Flores-Macías,, G.
A., & Zarkin, J. (2023). The Consequences of Militarised Policing for Human
Rights: Evidence from Mexico. Comparative Political Studies, 57(3), 387-418.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231168362
Gillham, P. F.,
Edwards, B., & Noakes, J. A. (2013). Strategic incapacitation and the
policing of Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City, 2011. Policing &
Society, 23(1), 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2012.727607
Goldfinch, S.,
Taplin, R., & Gauld, R. (2021). Trust in government increased during the COVID-19
pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 80(1), 2025-11-03 00:00:00.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12459
Goldsmith, A.
(2005). Police Reform and the Problem of Trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4),
443-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480605057727
Goldsmith, A.
(2005). Police Reform and the Problem of Trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4),
443-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480605057727
Grimmelikhuijsen,
S., & Meijer, A. (2012). Effects of transparency on the perceived
trustworthiness of a government organisation: Evidence from an online
experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1),
137-157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus048
Grimmelikhuijsen,
S., & Feeney, M. (2016). Developing and testing an integrative framework
for open government adoption in local governments. Public Administration
Review, 77(4), 579-590. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12689
Ha, B. V. (2024).
Enhancing State Management Efficiency through Administrative Apparatus Reforms
in Vietnam. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis,
7(4), nan. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v7-i04-36
Hartanti, F. T.,
Abawajy, J., Chowdhury, M., & Shalannanda, W. (2021). Measuring citizens' Trust
in smart government services. Ieee Access, 9(nan), 150663-150676.
https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3124206
Hyndman, N., &
McConville, D. (2018). Trust and accountability in UK charities: Exploring the
virtuous circle. The British Accounting Review, 50(2), 227-237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.09.004
Indama, V. (2022).
Digital governance: Citizen perceptions and expectations of online public
services. nan, 1(2), 2018-12-01 00:00:00.
https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.1.2.3
Katapally, T. R.,
& Ibrahim, S. T. (2023). Digital health dashboards for decision-making to
enable rapid responses during public health crises: replicable and scalable
methodology. Jmir Research Protocols, 12(nan), e46810.
https://doi.org/10.2196/46810
Kim, S., & Lee,
J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and Trust in local government. Public
Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x
Kim, D., Kim, M.,
& Villegas, C. (2020). Organised labour strikes and social spending in Latin
America: The synchronising effect of mass protest. Latin American Politics and
Society, 62(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2019.62
Klein, J., Juhola,
S., & Landauer, M. (2016). Local Authorities and the Engagement of Private
Actors in Climate Change Adaptation. Environment and Planning C Politics and
Space, 35(6), 1055-1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774x16680819
Lee, Y. (2021).
Government for leaving no one behind: Social equity in public administration
and Trust in government. Sage Open, 11(3), nan.
https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211029227
Li, C., Sun, H.,
& Zhang, Q. (2023). Exploring the mesomeric effect of executive equity
incentives on enterprise innovation: A study in the context of digital
transformation. Kybernetes, 53(2), 734-751.
https://doi.org/10.1108/k-06-2023-1056
Lusianti, D.,
Prasetyaningrum, I. D., & Sundari, P. (2024). Quadrilateral brand: The
journey of brand trust in building brand equity. Kne Social Sciences, (nan),
nan. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i17.16322
Lutterbeck, D.
(2004). Between the police and the military. Cooperation and Conflict, 39(1),
45-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836704040832
Lutterbeck, D.
(2005). Blurring the dividing line: The convergence of internal and external
security in Western Europe. European Security, 14(2), 231-253.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830500336193
Mees, H., &
Driessen, P. (2018). A framework for assessing the accountability of local
governance arrangements for adaptation to climate change. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 62(4), 671-691.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1428184
Mees, H.,
Uittenbroek, C., Hegger, D., & Driessen, P. (2019). From citizen
participation to government participation: an exploration of the roles of local
governments in community initiatives for climate change adaptation in the
<scp>Netherlands. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29(3), 198-208.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1847
Meliala, A. (2001).
Police as military: Indonesia’s experience. Policing an International
Journal, 24(3), 420-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000005853
Máchová, R., &
LnÄ›niÄka, M. (2016). Modelling e-government
development through the years using cluster analysis. Jedem - Ejournal of
Edemocracy and Open Government, 8(1), 62-83.
https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v8i1.412
Nabatchi, T., &
Amsler, L. B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government. The
American Review of Public Administration, 44(4_suppl), 63S-88S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013519702
Niu, F. (2022). The
role of the digital economy in rebuilding and maintaining social governance
mechanisms. Frontiers in Public Health, 9(nan), nan.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.819727
Piotrowski, S. J.
(2016). The “open government reform†movement. The
American Review of Public Administration, 47(2), 155-171.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016676575
Ponte, E. B., Royo,
S., & Ratkai, M. (2016). Facebook practices in Western European
municipalities. Administration & Society, 49(3), 320-347.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714544945
Prasetya, F. (2023).
Good governance and public Trust. Jurnal Penelitian Ekonomi Akuntansi (Jensi),
7(2), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.33059/jensi.v7i2.8831
Ragolane, M., &
Malatji, T. (2024). An investigation into the causes and impact of service
delivery protests on political stability: Perceptions from the social contract
and relative deprivation. Eureka Social and Humanities, (1), 75-88.
https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5571.2024.003122
Redden, J. (2018).
Democratic governance in an age of datafication: Lessons from mapping
government discourses and practices. Big Data & Society, 5(2), nan.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718809145
Rozek, L. S., Luong,
P. J., Menon, A., Hicken, A., Apsley, S., & King, E. J. (2021).
Understanding vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19: The role of Trust
and confidence in a seventeen-country survey. International Journal of Public
Health, 66(nan), nan. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2021.636255
Setyawan, A. (2024).
Enhancing public service delivery through digital transformation: A study on
the role of e-government in modern public administration. nan, 2(10),
2439-2453. https://doi.org/10.59613/global.v2i10.340
Shen, N., Kassam,
I., Zhao, H., Chen, S., Wang, W., Wickham, S., Strudwick, G., &
Carter-Langford, A. (2022). Foundations for meaningful consent in canada’s
digital health ecosystem: Retrospective study. Jmir Medical Informatics, 10(3),
e30986. https://doi.org/10.2196/30986
Siebers, V., Gradus,
R., & Grotens, R. (2019). Citizen Engagement and Trust: A Study Among
Citizen Panel Members in Three Dutch Municipalities. The Social Science
Journal, 56(4), 545-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.09.010
Sollis, K.,
Campbell, P., & Drake, N. (2025). Australia's wellbeing framework: Is it
really ‘measuring what matters’?. Australian Journal of Social Issues,
(nan), nan. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70029
Sombatpoonsiri, J.
(2017). The policing of anti-government protests: Thailand’s 2013â€- 2014
demonstrations and a crisis of police legitimacy. Journal of Asian Security and
International Affairs, 4(1), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797016689224
Sun, I. Y., Jou, S.,
Hou, C., & Chang, L. Y. C. (2013). Public Trust in the police in taiwan: A
test of instrumental and expressive models. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 47(1), 123-140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865813489306
Thoa, T. T., &
Cuong, N. D. (2024). The future of open government. Conhecimento &
Diversidade, 16(42), 500-527. https://doi.org/10.18316/rcd.v16i42.11774
Wamsler, C. (2016).
From risk governance to city†"citizen collaboration: Capitalising on
individual adaptation to climate change. Environmental Policy and Governance,
26(3), 184-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1707
Zárate-Tenorio, B.
(2014). Social Spending Responses to Organised Labour and Mass Protests in
Latin America, 1970-2007. Comparative Political Studies, 47(14), 1945-1972.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013519409
