Western Civilization: The Rule of Law

One of the concepts that came out of the European tradition was the rule of law, in contrast to rule by decree or fiat. As the doctrine of the divine right of kings faded, and the Westphalian nation-state became the norm, the idea that there were laws that all were subject to became more widespread. While we tend to think of this as a modern development, the idea of the rule of law goes back to the Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle among them.  While we are a long way off from perfect application of the ideal of the rule of law, it has become so ingrained in our thoughts processes and expectations that we feel offended, feel a sense of unfairness, when we see examples of this principle being ignored or circumvented. When the United States or European nations engage in nation building, such as our occupation of Japan and Germany after World War II or in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the things that we seek to impose is the rule of law, and attempt to educate the occupied nation's leaders in its tenets. This doesn't often work as well as we'd like it to. On one hand, when we "rebuilt" nations like Japan and Germany, we were in a sense helping them revert to an earlier model. Germany's Nazi period was an aberration - they had been steadily moving away from the divine right of kings for generations and it was likely a relief to go back to an organized society. Japan was different in that there was a tradition of quasi-feudalism and military rule, but they were a society that valued order. The cultures in the Middle East are different. In many ways they are locked in the same framework that Europe was in the Middle Ages: the ascendancy of religion with the addition of a family/clan/tribal based culture. Many people in these nations see Western institutions as merely another way to promote their own group's interests. In Iraq, the offices of President and Prime Minister rotate among the main religious/ethnic groups and the top executives use their time in power to aggrandize themselves and their families. Police chiefs use their authority to oppress other religious groups and those with different tribal affiliations. 

So, which of these systems is better? Some might say that we have corruption and backroom deal-making in the Western nations, Some might allege that there is one type of justice for the rich and another for the poor, one type for whites and another for blacks, that "technicalities" allow the guilty to go free and that bigotry causes the innocent to be imprisoned or even executed. Every bit of this is true. But despite the fact that the system is often implemented poorly, there is a system and there is an expectation that it will work. Not only that, but we have seen incremental improvements and protections over the decades. The things that we dislike about our system, the things that we attempt to correct, are the very things that are at the heart of other systems. 

Being realistic, we cannot impose the rule of law on other cultures, but that doesn't mean that we can't encourage it and facilitate it when members of other societies express and desire to change their own countries.