From Power to Purpose

 

Author : AM Tris Hardyanto

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., & Lněnička, 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