Page 69 - kpi17968

58

idea that rule of law has no clear meaning. Just consider what
would be the case without the rule of law. We would have the rule
of mere power, flowing, as Mao said, from the barrel of a gun.
Although rule of law has its critics, I doubt that anyone really
prefers to live in a society based on the rule of anything else, and
history provides conclusive evidence as to why this is so. Even
benevolent dictatorship is still dictatorship. All attempts to create
something like Plato’s Republic or the perfect Confucian state
have in practice failed to embody benevolence.

The core meaning of rule of law is that regular law is
supreme. From this can be derived every other proposition we
associate with rule of law.

For example:

i) No power is above the law. Officials and citizens alike
are equally accountable before it.

ii) The law alone provides a basis for all exercise of state
power - with no exceptions.

iii) Law is ‘regular’, ie is settled and is not invented on an
ad hoc basis, not changed according to the person to
whom it is applied.

iv) Law is not to be retrospective; changes in the law must
be prospective.

v) Law should be clear and not vague, and its content
should be available to everybody.

vi) Nobody should be penalised except for a clear breach
of settled law.

vii) Law is enforced through the ordinary courts.

viii) Those courts are independent of political power.

ix) People should have equal access to the courts.

ปาฐกถานำ