|
Makale Özeti:
|
Although the Rule of Law is a very popular concept, its definition is elusive.
Generally, it connotes the idea of a government of laws, not of men, or that no
one is above the law. If a king or dictator enjoys too much power, his “word is
law,” so the law follows his whim. That is the rule of man, not the Rule of Law.
Whatever the Rule of Law is, therefore, it is not the rule of man, because it is
incompatible with placing anyone above the law.
When Southern Sudan achieved autonomy under its Comprehensive
Peace Agreement in 2005, the new chief judge of the Southern Sudan Supreme
Court hailed the end of hostilities as a new era of “Rule of Law.” He contrasted
it not with the “rule of man” but with the “rule of the gun.” In a region torn by
decades of civil war, and other lawless banditry, including the ravages of the
infamous Lord’s Resistance Army, the power was exercised at gunpoint, and
whoever held the gun made the rules. In this case, it is not the king or dictator,
but the person who is armed and threatening violence, who is above the law.
The Rule of Law therefore means that the government and its highest
leaders, as well as the armed and dangerous, are subject to the same laws as
everyone else, that they must comply with the law, and that they will be held
accountable, even punished, for violation of it. But to what degree is it
achievable in any society? And who enforces it, to ensure that it happens?
|