Societies are innately tribal, so I think realistically such a project will devolve into something inhumane in any society, regardless of perceived racial or religious homogeneity, because of inter-group competitions. Moreover, no one really ever trusts the policing apparatus in any state, regardless of its true nature or intention, so there will always be resistance to any such policing. However, people are likely to trust culture, and ideas related to that culture, with the caveat that there is some principled approach to updating laws per the needs of the population as conditions change; the latter half, principled updating, is currently missing from democracies as the current modus operandi is updating laws by request via petitioning or lobbying, so whoever is the loudest or most well-funded wins. The end result is that there is discontent because democracy by favoritism, or policing, is not a democracy. If the goal is to maintain cultural and national stability, then governance structures should be flexible enough to absorb shocks from changing cultural viewpoints. Practically, that looks like what is commonly derided as centrism, or essentially, not holding allegiances to political tribes, but instead to a sense of upholding cultural and national strength. So, I think instead of building literal policing structures, which will always be inherently fragile, democratic nations are better off focusing on building a sense of national cultural identity for heterogeneous populations, without any particular focus on race or religion.
Societies are innately tribal, so I think realistically such a project will devolve into something inhumane in any society, regardless of perceived racial or religious homogeneity, because of inter-group competitions. Moreover, no one really ever trusts the policing apparatus in any state, regardless of its true nature or intention, so there will always be resistance to any such policing. However, people are likely to trust culture, and ideas related to that culture, with the caveat that there is some principled approach to updating laws per the needs of the population as conditions change; the latter half, principled updating, is currently missing from democracies as the current modus operandi is updating laws by request via petitioning or lobbying, so whoever is the loudest or most well-funded wins. The end result is that there is discontent because democracy by favoritism, or policing, is not a democracy. If the goal is to maintain cultural and national stability, then governance structures should be flexible enough to absorb shocks from changing cultural viewpoints. Practically, that looks like what is commonly derided as centrism, or essentially, not holding allegiances to political tribes, but instead to a sense of upholding cultural and national strength. So, I think instead of building literal policing structures, which will always be inherently fragile, democratic nations are better off focusing on building a sense of national cultural identity for heterogeneous populations, without any particular focus on race or religion.