Ethics question: Democracy versus the Rule of Law

[Darth Wong]

OK, here's my take on democracy vs the rule of law.

At the highest levels, the law represents not specific rulings, but principles. Those principles, or values, are deemed central to a society. We then appoint judges and various experts whose job it is to apply those principles in specific situations, hence rendering rulings that become a larger body of law. These principles set limits on the kind of laws that localities can pass for various sundry purposes.

Now (and here's the tricky part), the human animal is an irrational beast, and it is entirely possible (nay, a certainty) that a sizable portion of the population which espouses a principle will refuse to allow it to be applied to people they dislike. In any given situation, myriad emotions come into play which tend not to come into play when principles are discussed in the absence of applications to specific circumstances.

Hence, the critical importance of the Rule of Law is that at some level, in western constitutional societies, the Law derives from principles, not case-by-case decisions. The nation is filled with people who will agree with a principle ... until it is applied in a manner they don't like. This fundamental hypocrisy is something that the Rule of Law is designed to overcome. And that, folks, is why I believe in the Rule of Law over democratic decisions regarding specific situations.