| Conflict resolution |
|---|
| Principles |
| Law |
| Management |
| International relations |
| Models and theories |
Rule of man[a] (where "man" is used in a genderless manner[6]) is a type ofpersonal rule in an unaccountable society where rules change from ruler to ruler. It is a society in whichone person,regime, or agroup of persons, rules arbitrarily.[6][7] While rule of man can be explained as the absence ofrule of law, this theoretical understanding results in a paradox. Realism dictates that man and law do not stand apart and that the rules of each are not opposites. Rather law depends deeply on a state composed of men.[8][9]
On the other hand, as a positive concept, the rule of man, "a man capable of ruling better than the best laws", was championed inancient Greek philosophy and thinking as early asPlato.[10] The debate between rule of man versus rule of law extends to Plato's studentAristotle, and toConfucius and theLegalists inChinese philosophy.[11][12]
Rule of man is associated with numerous negative concepts such astyranny,dictatorship anddespotism, and their variations that have taken the form of theThirty Tyrants, theJacobin dictatorship (Reign of Terror) during the French Revolution,Caesarism,Bonapartism andspiritual gift politics (also known ascharismatic power), andregimes likeJoseph Stalin and theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union, andAdolf Hitler and theNSDAP.[13][14] Bad government is considered inherent to personal rule.[15] Despite theoretical associations of what constitutes a bad or good government, political realism dictates that rules will be established irrespective of the rulers being dictatorial or democratic, one or many.[15]
Aristotle associated individual rule to the absence of reason, to be animal-like, "to invest law then with authority is, it seems, to invest God and reason only; to invest a man is to introduce a beast, as desire is something bestial, and even the best of men in authority are liable to be corrupted by passion. We may conclude then that the law is reason without passion and is therefore preferable to any individual."[3] However Plato, Aristotle's teacher, had championed the rule of man, "an exceptional figure, capable of ruling better than the best laws".[10] The Sovereign exercises absolute authority and isnot bound by any law, he as a person exists outside law; the philosopherThomas Hobbes advocated such a society (including in his bookLeviathan), saying that a society would be better if it had one absolutemonarch as he would be free to choose and do what he thinks is best for the society without taking into account the opinions of others.[17][18]
James Harrington would go on to pen the phrase "a government of laws and not of men" in 1656,[19] which in turn found its way into theConstitution of Massachusetts whereJohn Adams was the principal author.[20][21] In the 1803Marbury v. Madison U.S. Supreme Court case, Chief JusticeJohn Marshall wrote "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."[20][22] In 1977, a formerSupreme Court of India judge,Hans Raj Khanna, stated in a speech,[23]
Ever since the beginning of civilisation, two conflicting viewpoints, rule of men or rule of law, have competed for acceptance. Although each school of thought has not lacked in its votaries, in the aggregate the thinking has been in favour of the rule of law. On occasions we have slipped back into government by will only to return again sadder and wiser to the rule of law when hard facts of human nature demonstrated the selfishness and egotism of man and the truth of the dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Rule of law is now the accepted norm in all civilised societies. Even if there have been deviations from the rule of law, such deviations have been covert and disguised, for no government in a civilised country is prepared to accept the ignominy of governing without the rule of law.
— JusticeHans Raj Khanna, 1977
Countries such as China have developed and transitioned from 'rule of man' to 'rule by law', and finally to 'rule of law' from the 1970s onwards.[24] During thecultural revolution in ChinaMao Zedong was quoted as saying "Depend on the rule of man, not the rule of law"; however by the 1970s Mao started advocating a law-based society in theory.[25] However similar concepts had their own origins in China as early as 536 BC, whenZi Chan attempted to make law less arbitrary and more permanent by getting it inscribed and put on public display.[12]Renzhi, translated by western scholars as 'rule of man', could be better explained as 'rule of people'.[5]
Absence of rule of law implies the absence of a legislature, judiciary, and a legal administrative and enforcement system.[26] On the other hand, rule of man is associated with the lack of a legal system, that is, lawlessness.[26]
Laws, and the rule of law, is not isolated from man and the rule of man. There are a number of overlaps between the rule of man and the rule of law. Considering the rule of law and rule of man as independent opposites results in a paradox as law occurs within a state, and not independently.[8][9]
Central to the operation of the rule of law ... was a conceptual framing of the 'rule of law' and the 'rule of man' as oppositional notions, a paradoxical framing suggesting in both India and China that law somehow stood apart from the realm of everyday power. Yet law was deeply dependent on the state (staffed by men), and on the operation of state power.[27]
...what the West has sometimes labeled as a rule of man but is more accurately translated as the rule of people from the Chinese word renzhi
...to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, [...] This is more than consent, or concord... I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence.
