CAN we have a law-enforcement officer or a video camera on every street corner, in every public space, physical and online? Clearly not.

How do societies ensure that the people abide by the law when there is little fear of being caught in the absence of the law-enforcement officer? Through ethics, community standards and the fear of being thought ill of.

For instance, you are alone on a street where a fancy car is parked. You see a Rs5,000 note lying on the front seat of the car. Will you break the window of the car to get it? No one else is visible on the street and there are no video cameras either. So, the probability of being caught is zero. Would you break the window to get the note? Some might. Others might not. The reasons will vary.

Some might feel they have nothing to lose as they will not be caught and the broken window is not their problem, while they would gain Rs5,000. So, they may go ahead and break the window. If they are desperate for the money, it will add to their reasons for doing so. Others might feel that Rs5,000 is just too small an amount to justify the effort and perceived risk.

But they could change their mind if the amount were Rs50,000. There would be others who would not take the money because of the fear of being caught, out of habit, or for religious and ethical reasons.

What sort of society should we aim for? A society that follows its self-interest and only deviates from it when there is fear of law or punishment? Everyone is ready to break the window; they only refrain if a policeman is present or if they fear being caught and punished. Clearly, such a society would be a terrible one to live in, even if it were possible to have a `society` like this.

Take the example of a society that has some focus on community and a sense of belonging; it is one in which individuals are brought up with asense of citizenship and community rights and responsibilities. It does not mean this society would be without laws or their enforcement but that a lot of the societal interactions would be based on the norms of the community and the ways of doing things. The law would be enforced as a measure of last resort. The examples of how citizens behave in Japan, Europe or traditional societies and tribes can be taken from societies with strong norms, which are invested in seeing the latter internalised in their population this may be implemented for the younger people through education systems and parental and community guidance.

In this country, over the last few decades, we have been sliding in the other direction. When norms are found to be inadequate for addressing certain issues, or when they are violated, the first response is to look towards strengthening the law or its enforcement. If people do not wear helmets when driving motorcycles, let us fine them. If they still do not comply, let us raise the fine and strictly enforce it. If it still does not work, how about lodging FIRs against them and locking up vehicles and so on? And all this is for what? For the protection of the person who is driving the motorcycle and the people around him or her. We might achieve compliance this way eventually, but will compliance then become the norm? The moment enforcement lags, and we have seen it happen a number of times, people start to ignore the law.

Take the example of speeding on the Motorway. Fines were imposed the Motorway Police was quite good at this. But then, things became lax and many people started to drive fast. Fines were hiked, but that was found to be inadequate, so now, if you drive above a certain limit, an FIR is registered against you and you can be arrested and your car can be impounded.

We can see this in the realm of expression aswellin both physical space and online. Norms were not enough to deter excesses when protests took place and people let their views be known on online forums. What was the solution? The social media platform X was shut down for a long period. And laws were made stricter, with their enforcement now on steroids. This has, of course, not solved the issue; in fact, it cannot solve the issue.

Underlying issues need to be addressed and we have to learn how to disagree with each other and manage this disagreement. Every time a person expresses anger against the government, a department of the state, or individuals in the government or departments, it is not disloyalty, not grounds for persecution and definitely not a reason for a `software update` the ugly term we have coined for abduction, torture and destruction of an individual`s human dignity.

Where does society go from here? Once we have set off in the direction of invoking the law and ensuring its enforcement, the importance of norms is reduced. Thus norms become weaker.

So, the use of the law is not norm-neutral.

Escaping from the vicious cycle of infringements of norms, stricter law and enforcement, weaker norms, more infringements and even stricter laws, gets harder and harder. We are already caught in more than one cycle in some of the areas mentioned.

Can we reverse the trend? It will take a major social and political upheaval to change things.

And the upheaval will have to dislodge beneficiaries of the current system to allow reconfiguration. The current beneficiaries will, of course, continue to resist. So, for the foreseeable future, we will see the continuation of a vicious cycle. • The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Altematives and an associate professor of economics at Lums.