I’ll state my thesis boldly: The Rule of Law, as it has evolved and been handed down (and in some cases imposed) by England, is the greatest gift in the history of mankind. I would rank the Magna Carta as equal in importance to the Bible, and maybe even more so (I’ll defend that whopper later). Before I can defend that claim, though, we have to be using language the same way and I need to define what I mean by “the Rule of Law.” Without getting too esoteric, or legalistic, I’ll call the Rule of Law a proposition that says that validly enacted laws (by whatever process, and I mean this in the broadest possible sense, including judicial decision) are required to be followed by the citizenry, and enforced by whatever sovereign is so charged. And that every man, woman, and child, including the sovereign itself, is subject to the Law.
Wikipedia says that a 19th century British jurist A.V. Dicey popularized the expression, but its origins date back to ancient times. Plato weighed in with his view of a benevolent monarchy, headed by a philosopher king, who would be above the law. Plato did, however, believe that such a philosopher king would, by virtue of his wisdom, would respect the law himself.be good at respecting established laws, explaining that “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, 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.” Wonderful sentiment.
Of course, I have to move right on to my Man, Aristotle, because he got it.
“It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.” Politics, 3.16. Oh, poor Aristotle, where art thou now?
Anyway, the idea that the law would be established, published, and subject every citizen to its rigors, no matter high or low station, is a concept that seems so self-evident that it’s easy to take it for granted. It’s like the Force in Star Wars – it’s everywhere; it permeates everything.
Now, in order to illustrate – and prove – its importance, I have to come at this from its inverse. I had the distinct “pleasure” of spending over 18 months in Afghanistan, including when it was holding its first elections in 2004, and I still have close friends over there, both American and Afghan alike. I also was able to travel back there as a civilian in 2010 to defend a servicemember charged with a crime (yes, he was acquitted – lawyers never bring up cases they lost) and the observations from 2004-06 were still just as accurate as my recollection of my time there 5 years before. And I was no Fobbit during my years there – I spent a lot of time outside the wire, sleeping under those incredible starry skies, helping conduct MedCaps in villages on the Pakistani border, and interacting with the local villagers on a regular basis. At one point, I spoke very good conversational Pashto, and could write it pretty well, too. (Not so much, anymore).
This is not a shot at the Afghan people, but it was, for me, an incredibly revelatory experience in dealing with the fledgling Afghan legal system and tradition. I was a relatively new attorney (5 years into my career) and it was as star a comparative law study as one could get. I’ll end this post here and pick up with the comparison tomorrow.