When a society embarks on building up a democratic state at times pundits say it is admissible to downplay or outright ignore the importance of the rule of law it in the name of moving forward faster, at least early on. The thinking is lengthy debates and legal procedures can slow down the progress of a well-organized, focused group leading the reform. To use an analogy, consider two caravans crossing an unexplored desert - the first one, call it Alpha, is led by an energetic, charismatic head merchant who leads with a conviction, shows no signs of hesitation, keeps an eye on the target, squashes squabbles with an iron fist and leaves the weaklings behind in the name of speed and efficiency. The second one, call it Beta, is led by a group of elder merchants, they often stop, argue about the direction, provisions, cargo, each representing separate faction, rarely reaching a consensus and often having to cope with an uneasy compromise. Which of these groups has a better chance in establishing successful trading routes? I claim it the latter, Beta.
Argument
To most people it might be appear intuitive that Alpha should succeed over Beta. Just consider the amount of fiction - books, plays, films - piled up over the years depicting some likable protagonist leading good but reluctant individuals to victory over scheming evildoers. Most people enjoy these plotlines more than some boring exploration of how a large group of people managed to build a sustainable enterprise with none of them being particularly interested in being a hero. Why is that? Why do we like heroes so much?
There are many complex social factors are at play here but I believe the key is in our evolutionary psychology. We evolved as pack animals, we strive for strong leadership and once available, readily follow it. Without this trait we would never succeed in defeating the nastiest predictors of cave-days who has an dubious luck of crossing our path. For the same reason we befriended wolves early on. They are also pack animals. We made sure they knew well who was running the show though, patiently weeding out any claim of leadership we turned them into dogs. As far as homo-sapiens is concerned a good wolf is a dog.
The coin has another side though. As primates we evolved in a complex social web of interactions where the ability to read another's mind is as crucial for survival as having a really big stick readily available for casual skull-bashing. In that respect we are individualists. Down deep we know it is ultimately up to us, as individuals, to succeed. We tolerate the group not because we see ourselves as some insects building a hive society but because we see union as primary mechanism for survival, both on physical and emotional levels. It is not surprising then the only other species we truly befriended in our onerous path were cats. Arguably the most individualistic of all quadrupeds. We never tried to teach them who is the boss though. Or maybe we tried and learnt better. I am not even sure they are truly domesticated. I think they just tolerate us for time being because it helps them win the big game. Either way a good cat is a respectful cat.
I hope the metaphor of cats and dogs is not too cheesy and expresses the dualism of human character adequately. The key here is we are quite unique in this respect - we learned to live our days in an uneasy truce between strong leadership and level-headed pluralism. Call it Yin and Yang if you will. The good news is these two traits are opposite and complimentary at the same time. Alpha approach works for short risky endeavors - hunting expeditions, military campaigns, natural disaster relief efforts and such; Beta approach is more suited for long-term projects - planning where to build a village, negotiating with neighboring tribes, electing village elders. One targets to achieve short-term (often one-time) goals while the other strives to create sustainable institutions.
Where does the matter of building a democratic state based on the rule of law belong then? I think the answer is self-evident. How can it be possible to successfully execute one of the most challenging long-term projects - building a state capable of outliving its founders - with the same approach hunters use to bring down a beast or generals - to eliminate an enemy force?
Returning to the caravan analogy while Alpha might succeed several times in a short run but beta will eventually out-compete it. The problem with the Alpha here is it only takes one mistake of one leader to cause a disaster. While Beta might make many mistakes collectively they are unlikely to amount to a comparable disaster. The history of humankind is full of lessons how the most well-intending young men turned into vicious beasts once the burden of single-handed leadership was bestowed upon them. On the flip side there are certainly some cases of the opposite being true (nothing ever black and white with humans, is it?) but such cases are so rare they are often viewed as near-paradoxical exceptions.
Building democracy starts with the inclusion of all voices not by expecting some authoritarian core to goad docile masses around in hopes of finding promise land. Justice is never passed down from high above. It is earned and sweated and cherished ground-up. When we outsource this task to well-meaning gray-haired men, they tend to climb up the nearest mountain and bring down ancient-looking stone tablets. We all know how that movie ends - forty years of wondering followed by settling down on the only part of the desert with no natural gas or oil.
Giorgi, this is a very well written note and, for the most part, I actually agree with the title – but, unfortunately, I must disagree with most of the actual content.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it seems to me that you are mixing together (either intentionally or unintentionally) two concepts – rule of law and democracy. To me, it is possible to have one without the other. That is, you can have rule of law without democracy and you can have democracy without the rule of law.
Second, you seem to argue that democratic method of decision making is (at least in the long term) is more effective than a more authoritarian method. My view on this is the opposite. This is not to say that I’m against democracy, but to me, democracy and democratic method of decision making are two different things.
Let’s take these one at a time:
Rule of Law – before talking about whether it can be ignored or not, let’s define it. I don’t know if my definition differs from yours, but to me, rule of law is characterized by 3 principals:
1. There is a stable body of laws – that is laws are not being arbitrarily changed all the time to fit special interests. These laws could be enacted by a dictator, a king, a parliament, or a referendum. They might be good or bad laws, and they might be viewed as unfair by some or even most of the population, but as long as they are stable, this criteria of rule of law is satisfied
2. The law is applied fully and equally to all individuals. That is, no individual is above the law and each and every individual gets the same treatment under the law regardless of their intelligence, wealth, connections etc.
3. There is an effective mechanism of resolving cases when the law is not applied correctly
Now, the rule of law is not something that you either have or you don’t – there are degrees – you can have more of it or less of it. I would confidently state that there is no nation on earth that fully meets the criteria stated above. Some are closer to the ideal while others are light years away. Moreover, even along the 3 principals, there are different areas in which some nations succeed while others don’t. Let me make a couple of examples:
1. High crime is a clear indication that there is a deficiency in the rule of law – there is a group in the society (the criminals) that seems to be able to escape criminal justice (otherwise they wouldn’t break the law). There could be many reasons for that – they could be bribing or threatening the police, the police might be poorly trained or equipped etc. but the fact that criminals reign free violates principal #2 and thus diminishes the rule of law
2. High rate of bribery in government institutions is also a clear indication of the deficiency in the rule of law. Again, some individuals are being treated differently from the others (in this case the privileged group is the reach or those with good connections) and are able to resolve whatever issues they have more easily
3. The law is rarely applied to government officials – this happens in many developing countries, and this is a clear violation the rule of law
My point with the above was to show that a state can solve some of the issues (e.g. reduce crime and bribery) but fail in others (e.g. equal application of law to government officials or an effective mechanism of resolving misapplications of law).
Now, to go back to my original statement: having democracy does not ensure the rule of law. A good empirical example is India, where there is a fairly well functioning democracy, but bribery and “immunity” of officials is fairly widespread. There are contrary examples as well – states with little democracy but very well developed rule of law – Singapore comes to mind here.
So, while there is certainly a relation – you’d hope that democratic control of the government would incentivize advancement of the rule of law, this relation is a rather relaxed one, and one does not imply the other.
I’ll try to get to the second part of what I wanted to comment on in another post.
I am posting this as a moderator: Please, stay on the subject. The proposition put forward is not whether Rule of Law and (representative) democracy are the same concept. The proposition is whether or not it is admissible to disregard the rule of law (that is violate one of the principles you outlined) in the name of building democracy.
ReplyDeleteI don't think RoL and Democracy are the same thing. Please, let me know which part of my post led you to believe I do and I will clarify.
I do think though the relationship between the two is much stronger than you imply. I think it would be interesting to discuss the question of their relationship in a separate motion. I would be very happy if you would be willing to take it upon yourself to create a new post for this.
Hopefully, we'll have more members in future, so, a third party can moderate.
Giorgi, here is what led me to believe that you are mixing the two together:
ReplyDelete"When a society embarks on building up a democratic state at times pundits say it is admissible to downplay or outright ignore the importance of the rule of law it in the name of moving forward faster, at least early on. The thinking is lengthy debates and legal procedures can slow down the progress of a well-organized, focused group leading the reform."
Here you seem to contrast RoL with "lengthy debates and legal procedures." While legal procedures are a definite part of the RoL, debates are not. Also, your caravan analogy, which you spend a good chunk of the post on, does not contrast societies with and without RoL, but rather contrasts ones with and without democratic decision making process. In fact, most of your post is about how democratic decision making is more efficient (at least in the long-term) than an authoritarian one. This is rather disconnected from the title of the post – so, I thought it was important to make sure we are talking about the same thing when we talk about the rule of law.
Now, as I said in the beginning of my previous post, I do agree with what you’ve said in the title – with one clarification: RoL is essential to building any successful society (whether democratic or not). If we limit ourselves to discussing only democratic societies, there are definitely exceptions where you can have democracy without the RoL – but those are far and in-between (I think we are in agreement here). In fact, I would say that those societies which try to have democracy before having at least a decent semblance of the RoL (as well as a host of many other characteristics) almost always fail.
So, where I think we disagree (and correct me if I jumping to incorrect conclusion here) is that you imply that democracy is needed to have the RoL (at least that’s what I got from your caravan analogy) – while I say that RoL should come before a sustainable democracy is possible.
My final point is: RoL is not black and white – you can have more of it or less of it. Let’s say there was a rating which would rate countries on RoL on the scale from 1 to 100. I am going to make these numbers up, but the US would probably end up somewhere in the 80’s on this rating, some Scandinavian countries (maybe Australia and NZ) would be in the 90’s, Somalia and Afghanistan would be probably below 10. Somewhere along this scale there is a tipping point – countries below it cannot advance (e.g. cannot build a successful society and by extension democracy). While countries above it, even though they don’t have perfect RoL, can move forward (and do so at different speeds). So, to put it very simply: on the path to a successful (and eventually, democratic) society rule of law cannot be ignored, but even countries with imperfect RoL (let’s say around 60 on my imaginary scale) can move forward on this path.
I see why you made the connection between RoL and Democracy. The key here is there is an assumption the authoritarian group will move the reforms faster if RoL does not (always) apply them. As for the analogy, it is an analogy and as any analogy, not perfect.
DeleteFrom your second post, I think we agree on quite a bit. The main thing we might disagree on (please, correct me if wrong) is the point that RoL and Democracy can exist independantly. I think RoL is a vital part of what we have come to call Representative Democracy in the West. Its presence is a litmus test. The reverse is certainly not true. If you don't mind, I would like to discuss this in a separate proposition. I used to think these two were completely separate concepts but in the latter years have to come to doubt that. To be specific, the motion I am suggesting is: "Democracy and RoL can exist one without the other". This time you would carry it while I will argue against it. It would be interesting to challenge such a motion.
Regarding your final point. We might need to make a broader agreement here. IMHO, your statement RoL can not be viewed as an absolute applies to a lot of concepts in this domain of knowledge. There are no perfect democracies, perfect elections, perfect voters, perfect rulers, etc. It is all reflections of an ideal, as Plato said. I suggest we accept it as a shorthand notion that statement like - "certain concept is present here but not there" means "Certain concept exists here to some acceptable level while it doesn't exist there to the same level". This should save us some time. In special cases where the degree of presence is vital to the discussion, we can specifically call it out. For example, I might disagree with you on RoL below 60 on your scale being acceptable for, say, 9 years of building democracy while it might be acceptable for 1 year.
I do agree that RoL is required for democracy, but my position is that democracy is not required for RoL - there are other conditions under which RoL can exist. I do agree that this is a topic for a separate discussion, and will try to put together a note on it. Though, I can't commit to a timeline at this point (seems like the next few weeks will be quite busy for me).
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I wanted to write about is concerned with the "meat" of your original post. While I do believe that RoL is required for building a successful society - I do not believe that the democratic process is the best way to go (at least in the early stages). That is, fundamental reforms under a condition of democracy are extremely difficult, and it seams that countries that did the reforms first, then established the RoL, and only then became democratic are much more successful than countries that jumped into democracy head first.
Finally, the very definition of democracy is not easy to agree on. For example, I do not agree that universal suffrage is a necessary condition for democracy. In fact, I think that under certain conditions it would transform democracy into ochlocracy very quickly. This too might deserve a separate post.
We're on the same page that RoL is a required component of democracy. It would still be an interesting idea to discuss the relationship between the two in-depth. I'll check the blog settings, I think I need to do something to allow other users post, and let you know. No worries about time commitment.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in the argument for the motion, I accept the idea of Alpha style leadership under right circumstances. For example, under an imminent attack from an alien force, it is justified and expected from the civil leaders to temporarily surrender their authority to their military counterparts, declare martial law, etc. Romans had the office of dictator for this very purpose. This is a temporary event though and once the extraordinary conditions causing it are removed, so shall be this extraordinary setup. For example, martial law has was established in Egypt for nearly 40 years before Arab spring. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider this to be a foreplay into some bright, democratic future.