LOOK back in antiquity and societies have always been struggling with the question of the “rule of law” versus the “rule of men”. Greek philosopher Plato wanted a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law.
Yet, he also wrote: “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.”
The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs had the absolute power of life and death over anyone in the kingdom. The Israelites fleeing Egypt had a set of 10 laws carved in stone tablets. The first king of the Israelites was not crowned until 1,000 years before the Common Era.
By definition, the rule of law is “the principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual government officials.” Laws then should be the regulations that pass from government to government regardless who might temporarily hold the power.
However, since these laws are enacted by men, there is the risk of “two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.”
In order to hopefully stop the wolves from eating the sheep, the concept of the rule of law not only had to be about codifying proper and improper behavior, but enshrining the idea that everyone was subject to the same rules. “No man is above the law.”
But, in actual practice, this rule of law thing is complicated. “Thou shall not kill” becomes “Thou shall not murder,” to which is added “unless it is a justifiable homicide.” And still the rule of law requires that determination of guilt or innocence is required in every individual case. It is as if the law is not absolute but only a guideline.
Further, the concept of rule of law can be distinguished from “rule by law.” Chinese law professor Li Shuguang writes, “The difference…. is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, which suppresses in a legalistic fashion.”
The World Justice Project ranks nations according to a four-pronged criterion: Private as well as government accountability, clear and stable laws, the processes by which laws are enacted, administered, and enforced being fair and efficient, and accessible and impartial dispute resolution.
Yet, only 11 nations out of 113 measured are considered to have strong (81 or higher on a 0 to 100 scale) adherence to the rule of law. The wealthier the nation, the stronger the rule of law. But then, do wealthier countries follow the law or does following the law create more wealth?
From the Economist magazine, March 13, 2008: “Some new research finds only a weak link between the rule of law and economic growth. The connection with wealth is well established but that is different: it has been forged over decades, even centuries. The link with shorter-term growth is harder to see. China is an example.”
However, when reforms that are necessary to strengthen the rule of law are implemented quickly, economic growth is positively affected just as rapidly. This was shown in several South American countries, including Chile.
Reform, though, is a political issue. Politicians will not improve the environment until the people demand improvement. The electorate gets what it votes for.