Rethinking the Foundations of Public Trust in the Police in Democratic Societies

Attention to reform of the Indonesian National Police (Polri) strengthening ahead of its eightieth anniversary has become a beacon for the institution’s future direction. The drive is not just about rules, but also a signal that Polri needs to reform its thinking and its work. Now, the boundary between private space and public space is increasingly blurred. Polri must be ready to face such changes in the era. One important thing to re-examine is how large the public’s trust in Polri is. Trust is not only the police’s task; society also has a role as a partner to maintain security.

Various studies conducted in many places indicate that the relationship between the police and the public, or the way the police operate, cannot be explained by a single factor. The latest research shows that public trust in the police does not depend solely on procedural justice. Trust is the result of far more complex interactions: the effectiveness of the institution, the integrity of officers, social cohesion, and citizen participation in the security ecosystem. In other words, security has never been the product of a single institution. It grows from the collective work of police and the community.

These findings are evident in studies across countries. Kiseong Kuen’s study in Baltimore, United States, shows that residents report environmental problems not only because they feel fairly treated, but because they view the police as a legitimate and trustworthy authority. The research by Waiphot Kulachai and Sutham Cheurprakobkit in Thailand finds that police performance is the main factor shaping public trust, while procedural justice plays only a supporting role. In South Korea, Chang-Ho Lim and Dae-Hoon Kwak found that the police’s ability to suppress crime is more influential on public trust than procedural rules alone. Even Jeff Gold’s research in the United Kingdom shows that procedural justice has an effect only when it appears in a social context that allows the formation of a reciprocal relationship between the police and the public.

These findings show that procedural justice is indeed important, but it cannot stand alone. It requires broader environmental support, such as well-functioning institutions, officers with integrity, and a community that supports one another. All of this is crucial for public trust to grow. Here it becomes clear that security is a joint task. The police need community support so that their duties run smoothly, while the public needs a police force that can be trusted to maintain security. This mutually reinforcing relationship is the core of policing in a democratic society.

This context is not new. Egon Bittner, one of the leading figures in policing studies, has long emphasised that police are always present in everyday life, but many people have not truly understood the police’s main task. Bittner stated that the police do not only enforce the law, but also use official authority to handle problems that other institutions cannot solve. However, this power comes with consequences. The greater the power the police hold, the greater the responsibility to ensure that that power is exercised in accordance with democratic principles and while maintaining public trust.

Jean-Paul Brodeur deepened this view. He argues that modern policing is always caught between demands for rapid action and demands for accountability to the public. The police must be able to act decisively, but at the same time safeguard public trust through transparency, proportionality, and respect for human rights. This tension means that public trust cannot grow solely from police conduct. Social conditions that support a two-way relationship between the police and the public are also required. Sometimes the relationship feels heavy, but without that relationship, legitimacy will be fragile.

In Indonesia, this tension is increasingly felt. Polri bears a mandate to safeguard public security, but the challenges are growing heavier. Transnational crime, digital threats, and rising social polarization exist. Public security cannot be addressed by a single institution. Public security can only be safeguarded if the social environment supports the police in their work. Society plays a role by providing information, support, and oversight. This is not just a rule on paper, but a practical necessity.

Therefore, if we want to revisit the foundations of public trust in the police, we also need to rethink how we understand security. Security is not a gift from Polri to the public. Security is born when Polri and the public work together. The police require community support for their duties to run smoothly and be respected. The public needs honest and dependable police to keep the environment safe and orderly. The core of policing in a democratic society lies in this relationship. Security is a shared responsibility, not only the duty of the institution.

This view was further deepened by Jean-Paul Brodeur, who showed that modern policing always sits in the tension between operational effectiveness and democratic accountability. The police are required to act quickly and decisively, but at the same time must maintain public trust through transparency, proportionality, and respect for human rights. This tension is what makes public trust unable to be built solely through police behaviour, but also through social conditions that enable a reciprocal relationship between the police and the public.

In the Indonesian context, this tension is becoming more apparent. Polri bears a constitutional mandate as the main actor in public security, but the strategic environment that is increasingly complex, ranging from transnational crime, digital threats, to patterns.