Lawderly: The Order of the Law and the End of Policing as We Know It
BY: OMOLAJA MAKINEE
Every society requires order. But not every society requires coercion. The form through which a civilisation maintains law and order reveals its moral architecture. Modern policing, inherited from colonial and industrial governance systems, is built upon a logic of enforcement, deterrence, and control. Law is treated as an external authority imposed upon society. Order is maintained through the constant presence—or threat—of force.
Lawderly represents a decisive civilisational departure from this model. Derived from law and order, Lawderly is defined as the order of the law—a system in which law precedes force, arbitration precedes enforcement, and moral legitimacy replaces coercive authority.
Lawderly is not a rebranding of policing, nor a softer variant of enforcement. It is the abolition of policing as a governing logic and its replacement with a humane, populocratic, and conscience-governed institution of public order.
1. The Crisis of Modern Policing
Modern policing did not emerge to serve communal harmony. Historically, it evolved to protect property regimes, enforce imperial authority, suppress dissent, and regulate labour populations. Its architecture is adversarial by design.
In practice, policing operates through:
- Surveillance rather than presence.
- Deterrence rather than prevention.
- Force rather than legitimacy.
- Authority rather than trust.
As a result, the police officer becomes “walking justice”—a mobile symbol of punishment whose presence alone generates fear, anxiety, and social tension. Communities do not feel protected by police; they feel monitored, judged, and potentially criminalised.
This is not a failure of training. It is a failure of structure, principle, philosophy, and worldview.
2. What Is Lawderly?
Lawderly is a public institution of moral arbitration, not coercive enforcement. A Lawder is neither a policeman nor a judge. They are umpires of social order—trained legal arbitrators whose authority flows from neutrality, accessibility, and communal trust rather than physical force.
Lawderly exists to resolve, not to intimidate. At its core, Lawderly repositions law as:
- A shared social contract.
- A living moral framework.
- A preventive instrument of harmony.
Rather than patrolling communities as potential crime zones, Lawders operate as walking arbitrators, embedded within society as relatable, recognisable, and trusted figures.
3. The Lawder as a Walking Arbitrator
One of the defining features of Lawderly is mobility—not as patrol, but as presence. A Lawder may:
- Visit disputing parties in their homes or workplaces.
- Listen to grievances without presumption of guilt.
- Facilitate dialogue and mediation.
- Issue binding arbitration where consensus fails.
- Record outcomes officially, with legal standing equivalent to court adjudication.
In this way, Lawderly brings the court to the people, rather than dragging the people into distant, alienating institutions. Justice becomes accessible, immediate, and humane.
4. Lawderly versus Policing: An Ontological Difference
The distinction between Lawderly and policing is not merely operational—it is ontological.
Policing:
- Governs through fear of consequence.
- Assumes disorder as default.
- Operates through force and threat.
- Treats society as a risk to be managed.
- Enforces compliance.
Lawderly:
- Governs through shared moral responsibility.
- Assumes order as recoverable.
- Operates through dialogue and arbitration.
- Treats society as a partner in order.
- Secures legitimacy.
Policing compels obedience. Lawderly cultivates consent.
5. Law, Order, and Moral Legitimacy
In policing systems, law is externalised. It is something done to people. In Lawderly systems, law is internalised. It is something owned by society.
Because Lawders arbitrate rather than enforce, their authority rests on moral credibility. Decisions are accepted not because force looms in the background, but because outcomes are perceived as fair, proportional, and socially intelligible. This moral legitimacy is what sustains long-term order.
6. Prevention Over Punishment
Lawderly is inherently preventive. By resolving disputes early—before escalation, resentment, or retaliation—Lawderly neutralises the conditions that produce crime. Social tensions are diffused at their source, rather than punished after damage has occurred.
Modern policing, by contrast, is reactive. It enters situations only once breakdown has already occurred.
Lawderly addresses causes. Policing addresses symptoms.
7. Populocracy and the End of Coercive Order
In a populocratic ethnosocialist society, power flows from the people. Institutions must therefore operate in moral continuity with public consciousness. Policing, as an institution of domination, cannot coexist with populocracy without contradiction.
Lawderly resolves this contradiction by:
- Aligning order with communal ethics.
- Embedding justice within everyday life.
- Eliminating adversarial power relations.
- Replacing fear with familiarity.
It is not the reform of police behaviour, but the abolition of the policing paradigm itself.
8. Safety Without Terror
A society policed is never truly safe—it is merely controlled.
A society governed by Lawderly is secure because its members recognise themselves within the legal order. Safety emerges not from intimidation, but from shared responsibility.
The presence of a Lawder does not terrify. It reassures.
Conclusion: From Force to Stewardship
The institution of Lawderly marks a civilisational threshold. Where policing represents an age of coercive governance, Lawderly inaugurates an era of legal stewardship—where order is maintained not by domination, but by conscience, dialogue, and trust.
By repositioning law from an instrument of force to a process of arbitration and prevention, Lawderly establishes a system of public safety that is humane, participatory, historically grounded, and ethically coherent with the aspirations of an ethnopublic society.
Lawderly does not ask society to obey. It asks society to agree. And in that agreement lies the highest form of order.
Back to: 👇