The Rule of Law

Philosophos: Returning to our discussion of government, why don’t we now turn to the question of whether a government should be ruled by men or by law?

Nomodiphas: Not that I can explain why, but I think that it is pretty obvious that a government should be run by laws and not men.

Philosophos: Well if it is so obvious there must be some reason behind your assumption.

Nomodiphas: I am sure there is—it is just that this seems to be one of those basic principles we simply take for granted. Our country from its inception has been one ruled by laws and not men. I just can’t see how there could be any advantage to a rule by a man and not laws.

Philosophos: Consider what types of people are ruled by men. Within a tribe people follow the chief. It is similar with warring nomadic types; there the people follow the strongest warrior. What is common in both of these social structures?

Nomodiphas: Uncertainty?

Philosophos: Explain.

Nomodiphas: When I think of tribal and warring nomadic people I assume that most of them are pre-literate. So for starters it is impossible for them to keep a written law code. But this does not rule out an oral law code. Yet these groups are always on the move and generally live hand to mouth so they lack the leisure time needed to contemplate good laws—they generally follow the traditions that have served them best in the past. The counter argument to that of course is that men don’t need leisure time to contemplate the making of good laws for all men intuitively know what is good and evil.

However I think the most crucial reason that some are ruled by men and not laws is the uncertainty and the chaotic state of their existence. Tribal and nomadic peoples live in makeshift shelters that do little to shield them from the elements. These shelters offer little protection from neighboring tribes so they are in a constant state of war—or at least war is a constant possibility. They don’t live in well ordered, predictable cities. They live among nature and other unpredictable humans. For that reason chaos and disaster is always a very real possibility. In times of chaos having a wise, decisive individual is the best chance a group has for survival. There is no time to consult traditions, law, or history. Each situation is new and the person best adept to lead and navigate through these unpredictable times will naturally rise to the rank of leader. This is the advantage of the rule of a man. It is needed in situations where groups of people live in uncertainty and need a single, decisive individual to navigate them through their numerous periods of uncertainty.

Philosophos: Indeed, in a time of no government everyman is enemy to every man. The only security man lives with is the security that his own strength and invention provides. As Hobbes wrote, “In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit therefore is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” In these times of chaos a well ordered government of laws cannot exist, people instead follow leaders who provide them with the best chance of survival.

You are exactly right to conclude that in times of chaos and uncertainty people turn to men and not laws. Consider the Pax Romana. During this long period of Roman peace most of Europe existed in a peaceful, predictable state. True there were wars, but these were on the frontier of the empire. France, Britain, Spain, North Africa, Greece, and Italy lived in peace and security for centuries. The countryside was secure, producing a predictable surplus of food. This surplus of food allowed men to become educated and engage in other trades. In this time of peace and predictability art, literature, learning, and trade all flourished. Because of this predictability and certainty there was no need for rule by a man.

But beginning in the fourth century this order began to unravel. Hundreds of thousands of German barbarians poured across the Rhine and into Roman lands: the Anglos and Saxons to Britain, the Vandals to Africa, the Visigoths to Spain, the Franks to France—Rome itself was sacked by Alaric the Goth in 410. These invasions shattered the certainty and order of the Roman Empire. The predictability that peace brought faded with the destruction of order. People fled to whatever stronghold they could for protection. The wealthy individuals that owned these strongholds quickly filled the power vacuum left by the breakdown of the empire. Each estate became a law unto itself.

The centuries that followed were filled with constant warfare between these small kingdoms. Similar to tribal conditions, these men existed in a state of constant uncertainty and chaos. This state of uncertainty once again necessitated the rule of one man—the local king, duke, knight, prince, noble—whatever he may be called. A time of uncertainty necessitates a strong ruler, not good laws, to protect the people for chaotic conditions require decisive actions. At that time there was no Spain, but there was instead a collection of autonomous regions: Castile, Leon, Aragon, Valencia, etc. The same was true with France. There was no France, but rather Normandy, Picardy, Auverrgne, Burgundy, Lorraine, etc. This situation was not unique to France and Spain; rather these conditions persisted in all of Europe.

At times, the most dramatic time being 800 AD with Charlemagne, these kingdoms were consolidated, but it wasn’t until the modern era that these independent kingdoms were consolidated into the nation states of Europe that we have today. Ferdinand and Isabella created the Spain that we have today at the end of the fifteenth century while the independent kingdoms of Germany and Italy were not united to their contemporary forms until the late nineteenth century. As kingdoms became more consolidated and, through consolidation, more secure there was less need for countries to be ruled by men. Some countries, like France, violently changed their system of government, but for most it was a gradual move from rule of men to a rule of laws. Why did this change occur? As order and certainty returned why was there a need to move to a system of rule by men to the rule of laws?

Nomodiphas: Rule by man is needed in times of external uncertainty, but rule by man at the same time creates internal uncertainty. As the kingdoms of Europe consolidated into modern nation states and external threats declined and order and certainty returned, the people got used to this certainty and security and desired more. When a man rules nothing is certain as far as internal affairs are concerned. He may be unjust and take the fruits of your labor, your children, your wife—or he may create unjust edicts, fail to give impartial judgments, and give privileges to his favorites. All of this creates uncertainty of internal affairs. One will be slow to plant if he is uncertain he will reap his harvest. One will be slow to invest in a business venture if the ruler can take the fruits of his labor at any time. This uncertainty of internal affairs is tolerated when there is uncertainty of external affairs and a decisive individual is needed to lead the people out of times of chaos, but when the external threat is diminished the people’s patience for internal uncertainty fades away with it.

This is what happened in the modern era. As peace and order returned to Europe (there have been great wars in the modern era, but these have been predictable, well ordered wars and not incessant raids and regular fights between neighbors) the people recognized there was not a need to allow a man to rule. Even though there were good rulers, their successors often were not good. Some were dominated by their fear or their greed, and many leaders were angry, impulsive, or just plain stupid. The people tired of being subject to the ever changing whims of one man when, because of the return of peace and predictability, the need for only one man to rule no longer existed. Men wrote, worked, and fought for a change and with time this change has come to encompass of all of Europe. This is why Europe moved from a system of rule by a man to a system of rule of laws.