You have probably heard that Russia is sometimes presented to the public as a police state. Such a term is common in foreign media, and our domestic liberals like to screw it with or without. The very phrase causes not very pleasant associations. But its essence is deeper than what seems to us at first glance. In fact, the use of this dubious characteristic has not the most good goals. Let's figure out why this is done.
What is a “police state”?
It is proposed to start by studying this term. It is not a definition of any type of state activity or political system. In fact, these words are an ideological cliche. And not only Russia is awarded this definition. Talk in the media space love. The authors especially like to accuse one or another country of arbitrariness. So, the phrase “police state” has characterized the United States. This happened after the adoption of the "Patriotic Act", expanding the powers of special services. In a democratic society, they generally very carefully and zealously guard their achievements.
Any creep on the part of governments in the field of increasing the rights of law enforcement agencies is immediately recognized as almost totalitarianism. In principle, there is nothing extraordinary in such a reaction. The usual, even routine political struggle. It turns out that the phrase “police state” is an instrument of ideological confrontation. It is used to influence the masses. This stamp is intended to form an opinion among people that deny the strengthening of the role of the state in society. In the context of globalization, the governments of many countries fall under this “tank”.
Features of Russia in relations with this stamp
For our people, the words “police state” have a special meaning. It is not even worth mentioning that he is extremely negative. In the understanding of the older generation, the police state is an authoritarian state. That is, these phrases are identical in meaning. 
And people still remember some distortions of the Soviet system. Subsequently, all the more, these shortcomings were erected practically into the Absolute by propaganda methods. However, people remember what is called a "violation of human rights." In the Soviet Union it was customary not to pay attention to such "nonsense" when the interests of the state were jeopardized. This is perhaps the most famous feature of the police system. In it, the controlling function of the state was paramount in relation to the rights of citizens. That is, the country's interests were put at the forefront, and everything else was relegated to the background. Clearly, not all citizens liked this. Life in a police state is generally replete with difficulties if a person has views that are different from the "party line." They could easily accuse him of separatism and put him in jail.
Police state: concept and signs
Now let's look at the mechanisms that govern the country from a legal point of view. Everyone knows that any state has functions. They are the same in our democratic world for all countries. Namely, we are interested in how the state ensures the rights of citizens. After all, he needs a police car just for this. With the help of people with broad powers, including the deprivation of liberty of citizens, it is called upon to ensure the observance of the rights of the country's inhabitants. 
This mechanism works on the basis of the legislation of this particular state. The acts binding on all spell out the rights and obligations of services. Here they are compared with those freedoms that citizens should have in a normal society. If specialized services receive the right, at their discretion, to restrict citizens, then they begin to talk about arbitrariness. That is, it is believed that citizens of such a country have too few freedoms. It turns out that the police state has signs in the field of realization of the rights of citizens. It is in this direction that you need to look.
But what about controlling and supervisory functions?
It is reasonable to ask such a question to the registered advocates of democracy. The fact is that all citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms. They require the state to provide them. It’s not a secret that the interests of citizens tend to conflict with each other. One wants some kind of freedom for himself, the other fights for the opposite. This, for example, is clearly visible in the processes of political struggle. 
Some citizens support the president’s policy, while others are harsh critics. This, of course, is their personal affair. And if all of them simultaneously wish to hold rallies on Poklonnaya, what should state bodies do? Deny - violate rights. Allow - create the conditions not just for conflict, but for a fight (at best). We have to resort to those rights that are commonly called “policemen”. That is, in this case, the state can limit part of the freedoms of citizens. Namely, to allocate a place and set a time for the action in such a way so that people do not arrange a "Maidan Massacre". And the “champions of democracy” shout about the violation of their rights.
What is the difference between a legal and police state?
When analyzing a question, you will certainly come across the fact that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other. To throw words, trying to offend the opponent, hurt him, this is one thing. But to really explain how the legal and police state differ from each other is a completely different matter. After all, each of them realizes its functions constitutionally, trying to protect its citizens. But the fine line separating normal work from overuse of their rights is almost elusive. For example, separatism is not welcomed in any country. Only in some states do people have the right to speak about the secession of certain territories, in others they arrest them for this. The second can be considered an abuse of the control function of the state. But separatist sentiments can lead to the collapse of the country. Why not fight it? 
The theory of the police state does not accept such behavior. It invades not only life, but also the thoughts of its citizens. It is afraid of the appearance of original ideas and tries to suppress them in its infancy.
What is the difference between the rule of law
As such, the relationship between power structures and citizens is based on other principles. First of all, the institution of private property should be highlighted. In a state of law, it is developed. This means that people are granted wide real freedoms. They have and exercise their rights to creativity, the accumulation of funds. At the same time, the state regulates the relations of owners, helps to resolve contentious issues. Each citizen a priori can do business and own the means of production. The police state is another matter. It is forbidden to own anything in it. The state itself is the owner. And it zealously guards its property.
Why is Russia called a police state?
Adherents of complete democracy are critical of the fact that not only private companies are developing subsoil in the Russian Federation. This, in their opinion, indicates the presence of elements of a dictate of power.They still do not like the broad powers of special services in the Russian Federation. 
That is precisely why they claim that Russia is a police state. In their opinion, conditions for competition are not created in this country. The state has priority over entrepreneurs in many industries.
About other countries
In the expert community there is often a debate about what the most police state in the world is. Some call North Korea, others look suspiciously towards Iran. It is clear that Russia, due to the geopolitical confrontation, is often the first contender for this dubious title. Here it would be advisable for specialists to look at how the formation of the police state proceeds. Are all these processes taking place in Russia? Indeed, here, on the contrary, the most favorable conditions for business development are created. The government is trying to attract foreign capital to the development of the country. In a police state, this is not possible.
USA and police
It is believed that the global hegemon is the most important contender for the championship in this competition. Let them be proud of the freedom of enterprise and the opportunity to have their own opinion. However, many facts indicate that these rights are only declarative in nature. In practice, this is not so at all. Starting an entrepreneurial activity in the USA is really simple. Only, according to statistics, after a year, almost all go broke. And with freedom of speech, everything is different from that in the information picture. Many journalists are expelled from work because they broadcast an opinion that is different from the generally accepted one. In Russia, this does not happen. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully understand which state in the world is called a policeman and who does it. They say the hat is on the thief. Perhaps this saying is appropriate in this dispute?