This article considers some varieties and supports for a democratic police and briefly contrasts policing. Democratic policing should be viewed as a process and not an outcome. Societies experience a continual tension between the desire for order and liberty. There is a paradox in the fact that a democratic society needs protection both by police and from police. Given the power of new surveillance technologies, democratic societies must continually ask "how efficient do we want police to be and under what conditions is the use of these technologies appropriate. Policeman’s function is in activities unrelated to crime control or law enforcement. Cumming, el al. (1965) reported that half of the calls for assistance to an urban police department may involve family crisis or other complaints of a personal or inter-personal nature. The policeman's role, unlike many other occupational roles, is ambiguous. The policeman is a friend and a protector. He assures safety on the streets and keeps the peace. You call him when you are in trouble, when your neighbors are making too much noise, or when your cat is caught in a tree. At the same time, the policeman is foe and repressor. He inhibits your freedom, tickets you when you are speeding or illegally parked, comes to your house to quiet you down when your neighbours complain about noise, investigates, and interrogates you when you are suspected of or involved in some illegal activity. There is no accepted systematic theoretical paradigm within which policing is viewed. The role and function of the police in a democratic and modern dispensation are typically assumed, and a measurable facet such as crime control is defined as the scholarly interest. Those viewed as essential policing functions and how they should be performed are products of the theoretical context within which the police are viewed, their perceived political role, and the posited character of the police organization. As a result, there are alternative versions of policing and what it is good for.