Editor's note: Hannan Hussain is a foreign affairs commentator and author. He is a Fulbright recipient at the University of Maryland, the U.S., and a former assistant researcher at Islamabad Policy Research Institute. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Faith in a state's ability to limit violence, and cultivate peace, is taking a new hit in the United States as more Americans subscribe to this glaring view: that violence against the government can be justified. A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey counts one in three Americans as proponents of that belief. Public apprehension spans America's divisive pandemic approach and its deep political discord, two realities that are increasingly seen as a recipe for public skepticism at home, let alone a test-case for bolstering leadership trust.

For all the talk about U.S. democratic ideals and individual liberties, it is damning to see one of the world's oldest modern democracies steadily expand the space for rationales that center on state-focused violence. After all, the percentage of Americans prone to hold that view is at its highest in more than two decades.

Make no mistake. Far too many drivers of state negligence underpin the American state's contested reception among segments of the masses. Look to gun violence. Last year alone saw more than 1,000 minors under the age of 12 get shot in the country. Mass shootings continue to surge as a series of major U.S. cities embraced new highs in annual homicides. In the midst of these grim realities, a responsible state's credentials become difficult to muster. That begs the question: where is the state?

In the Post-UMD poll, it is impossible to ignore the main reason cited by Americans to contemplate violence against the government. That is the government's own violation or encroachment of individual rights or liberties. Ironically, such is the narrative employed by successive U.S. administrations to target multiple governments overseas, be it on alleged human rights violation grounds or cosmetic concerns on free speech. 

Such distraction does not change the fact that it is the American state's own struggle to ensure fundamental freedom back home that demands an honest reckoning. The Joe Biden administration can continue to rail at so-called "authoritarianism" overseas and manufacture threats to democracy worldwide. But digressing from drivers of domestic resistance would likely fail to assure many Americans that their underlying grievances are left, right and center of the government's approach to fair governance.

In the words of writer Michael Harriot, "there is a difference between loving one's country and the vainglorious virtue-signaling that defines America's most self-righteously toxic misnomer." And so, divisive political campaigning and virtue-signaling across party lines in the U.S. is also a key factor that has complicated the American public's recognition of consequential events of the past. Consider how the 2020 U.S. presidential election and the January 6 Capitol Hill assault are both events pending firm validation in the eyes of many Americans. 

As the poll itself supports, political identities (disposition as a Democrat or Republican) have a substantial bearing on what many among the American public would greenlight as an act of violence against the government, and what others may dispute as unjustified. Either way, America's warped sense of free speech delivers a poor comment on a system that is billed to serve its citizen interests, irrespective of their political leanings.

All this should be a wake-up call for legislators in the United States since the space to establish dependable governance is gradually shrinking. Look at how Americans' "pride" in U.S. democracy has dipped sharply from 90 percent in 2002 to just 54 percent at present, with more Americans construing violence as a justifiable tool against the government than at any point in recent memory.

Elements of sober contemplation for lawmakers should thus include the pace with which the process of inquiry in the country, and determination of truth, are seen as political rather than institutional imperatives.

That alone raises questions about the state's ability to convince its citizens that it still has the leverage and the legitimacy to come off as a source of good.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)