The
Rule of Law means that a government sets out what is allowed and what is
not. This is different from Rule BY Law which means that laws are instruments of
oppression, which have nothing to do with the
Consent Of The Governed. The virtue of
the rule of law approach is that people can get on with arranging their affairs
without having to outguess the arbitrary decision of officials.
Friedrich von Hayek, an economist explains
this in The Road to Serfdom. In practice it
means prosperity is easier to achieve; a strong argument in its favour. An
important step in achieving the RoL came in 1215 AD when the Barons forced King
John to accept the Magna Carta at Runnymede.
Rule BY Law was explained by
Gordon
Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart aka Lord Hewart of Bury, the
Lord Chief
Justice of England then published in 1929 as the
New Despotism. His title is very much to the
point. The theme is that the government wants discretionary power, unaccountable
power. He was right then. He is right now. Given his background Hewart LCJ has
to be regarded as authoritative.
One answer to Rule BY Law is the use of bribery, which tends to
be illegal. An important symptom is the abuse of political power. Making
bad law in the first place is too easy for politicians. Applying it or not is
another.
When Her
Majesty's Prime Minister appoints the
Director of Public
Prosecutions he has real power to decide which law are enforced or not. This
applies with Racism, a Marxist construct which was made
into a criminal offence by Her Majesty's
Government with the enthusiastic collusion of
Her Allegedly Loyal Opposition. It means, just for instance that the
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, a chancer called
Howe will not investigate or
prosecute a little Pakistani oik called ''Lord" Ahmed even though
his guilt is blatant. Englishmen get short shrift though. This is
Misconduct In Public Office if not
Perverting the course of justice
or some variant, e.g. Selective Prosecution.
Rule Of Law ex Wiki
In its general sense, the phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and
it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist
A. V.
Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as
Aristotle,
who wrote "Law should govern".[4]
Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in
contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by
divine right [ or by abuse of power - Editor ]. Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has
been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion"[5]
giving rise to a "rampant divergence of understandings ... everyone is for it
but have contrasting convictions about what it is."[6] At least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a
formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick"
definition. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment
about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes
that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of
law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include
certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the
rule of law.[7
Rule Of Law ex Wiki UNQUOTE
QUOTE
The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) generally refers to the
"authority and influence of law in society," especially as a constraint upon
behavior, including behavior of government officials.[2]
This phrase is also sometimes used in other senses.[3]
UNQUOTE
The Wikipedia
says the idea is elusive. Friedrich von Hayek,
the distinguished economist is quite clear about it. His explanation in the
Road to Serfdom is straightforward,
persuasive, sensible. I go with Doctor Hayek on this one.
QUOTE
In 1977, the influential political theorist
Joseph Raz
identified several principles that may be associated with the rule of law in
some (but not all) societies.[60]
Raz's principles encompass the requirements of guiding the individual's
behaviour and minimizing the danger that results from the exercise of
discretionary power in an arbitrary fashion, and in this last respect he shares
common ground with the constitutional theorists A. V. Dicey,
Friedrich Hayek and
E.
P. Thompson. Some of Raz's principles are as follows:
The discretion to use or abuse law is abused in
England. That is how Hurd and Maude got away with
betraying us, by their Treason At Maastricht.