Can one state that one state performed better than another? The answer must be: on what aspect and by means of what evidence? From the rather large literature on how states perform I would like to utilize a comparative measure on legality or state integrity. 

States performing better or worse tend to be tapped by some democracy index. Yet, degree of democratic ness is a function of competition. Even a state like Singapore having rigged elections can display state integrity.The common core for state integrity is the rule of law. What does it mean?

Concept of Rule of Law

There is no neat and tidy definition of the expression “rule of law". The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following entry:

“The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”

Now, this sounds rather complicated as well as rather legalistic: how to measure it in order to compare states? 

One may deconstruct this concept with other concepts or criteria like:

• Strong legal formalism promoting equality under the laws

• Individual rights covering contract, free labour and property

• Checks and balances or institutions promoting countervailing government, I.e. states with countervailing competences between executive, legislature and judiciary and perhaps real federalism. 

As a matter of fact, a dictatorship may satisfy the criteria 1 and 2 at least partly. Thus, the criterion 3 is most essential, namely countervailing competences or powers [1].

A political regime characterized by countervailing rule can have a variety of institutions. Let us look at a recent attempt to measure the dimension of limited as well as countervailing rule.

WJP 

The World Justice Project (WJP) has offered a measure of rule of states ranging from 0 to 100. It takes into account the determinate criteria. We look at the most recent attempt to measure the dimensions of countervailing rule [2]. The World Justice Project defines a Rule of Law index as “a quantitative assessment tool designed by the to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.” 

The WJP index of rule of law is comprised of eight factors:

• Constraints on Government Powers

• Absence of Corruption 

• Open Government

• Fundamental Rights

• Order and Security

• Regulatory Enforcement

• Civil Justice

• Criminal Justice          

One notes that the WJP emphasizes accountability,  judicial independence, legal formalism and balance of power between executive and legislature [3].

Table 1. Average Rule of Law index by world region by 2020. (n = 128)

Source: WJP

It is worth pointing out that democracy is not here mentioned at all. Rule of law was historically  speaking conceptualized before the advent of democracy after the Great War. Rule of law as legality, rights and countervailing competences may be combined with democracy as merely popular rule, but it has not always been so. And Hongkong used to have rule of law without democracy as popular rule [4]. 

Mapping Rule of Law 

Table 1 presents the results of the most recent survey of the Rule of Law Index for 128 countries around the world, presenting the mean value by region.

Interestingly, the set of unitary states in Norden Scores higher than the federal set of FRG and Austria. Switzerland is not included regrettably. Moreover, the UK with its Common Law comes in higher than France and Italy civil law countries [5].

Dictatorships score below 60 and here we find most of the 128 countries in the WJP. The UAE is an exception scoring a high 65, although hardly a democracy. The score for Hongkong is merely history today. 

Only so-called Western countries score consistently above 60 on this scale with a few exceptions – Caribbean countries and Japan as well as South Korea. Possible explanations [6]. 

Western Civilisation

The civilisation argument is overtly or covertly used by several scholars. Thus, one scholar on YouTube says that western civilisation honours rule of law due to its 3 pillars: Greek, Roman  and Christian cultural legacies [7].

This is historically fallacious. Greek philosophy lacks major constitutionalism besides Aristotle (mixed rule).

Roman Heritage

Roman law never codified constitutional or administrative law. Corpus juris is mainly private law from the point of view of justice. The Roman empire after Caesar amounted to Occidental Despotìsm [8].

Christian Heritage

Christianity before the Reformation was based on extreme hierarchy. It recognized only the Old and New Testaments as valid sources of law. Calvinism started to speak of a constitution in the modern sense including individual rights such as religious belief. The master theoretical expose was done by John Locke in Second Treatise of Government from 1689.

Yet, rule of law does not figure prominently in any of the world religions. John Locķe went to natural law theory for his foundations. Revealed law does not comprise rule of law neither with Jesus or Mohammed nor Buddha – whether they were historical persons or not. 

The negative impact of religion appears in the numbers in Table 1 for Latin America, the Koranic civilisation as well as the Buddhist countries. For the post-Soviet states, it is not so much Christian Orthodoxy driving down numbers as the Communist legacy in combination with corruption. It has happened that a country can overcome the negative consequences of religion for rule of law, like in Japan and South Korea. Shintoism supported authoritarian rule, which also applies to the religions of South Asia and South East Asia.

Revealed law could only bolster limited and countervailing rule when united with the theory of natural law. Grotius declared in 1625 that natural law trumps revealed law, if different at all. If natural law implies rule of law, then we arrive at a secular approach to limited and countervailing rule. Grotius still supported monarchy. However, Locke managed the transition.

Natural Law and The Laws of Nature 

The clear-cut distinction between Grotius’ moral laws and Newton’s mechanical regularities is often not observed in the history of political philosophy. Thus, Leo Strauss e.g. argued that Locke was basically similar t7o Hobbes. Completely erroneous!

To Hobbes the state of Nature is the Darwinian homo hominem lupus – the survival of the fittest or the war of all against all. Humans like animals have one right only, namely to fight for survival by whatever means. Law is the command of the sovereign and revealed law merely useful for political goals.

Locke on the contrary retakes Grotius' idea of a binding moral law for both individuals and states, obligating everyone to keep their promises and respect others. To this he adds his own trust theory of government. 

Locke's Principal-Agent Framework 

The second treatise of government from 1689 is basically stoicism (Hobbes was epicurean), but he makes the new claim that humans make 2 contracts in order to validate the laws of nature: life, liberty and property. 

The laws of nature hold all the time, from the state of nature to the political stage of civil society and government:

• Do not harm someone

• Tell the truth

• Keep your contacts

If somebody or government violates these natural norms  reprisals including uproar is legitimate. A trust forfeited cannot be respected or constitute an obligation.

Government thus is a trust for securely providing the laws of nature, especially property, to its principal. To minimise the likelihood of mistrust the principal in the second contract binds government to restraints and countervailing competences.

Hobbes astonishingly failed on the principal-agent nature of government. Recognizing the sovereignty of Parliament would simply introduce a new form of bellum omnibus contra omnes, this time not in society but in Parliament. Since monarchy is wielded by ONE man or woman, there will be no infighting! Hobbes suggested all competences be given to the sovereign – in fact an authoritarian government. Perhaps the sovereign person is at war with him/herself? Hobbes bypassed the relevance of institutions to constraining politics.

Outcomes of Rule of Law

The WJP states that limited and countervailing government is not only intrinsically good but also extrinsic ally. The WJP claims that rule of law is conducive to, for instance economic development.

This involves exaggerating. Lots of research needs to be done to establish these claims. Maybe the limited and countervailing regime is valuable because it promotes justice? 

Democracy and Rule of Law 

A distinction between democracy as party competition and the plebiscite on the one hand and rule of law on the other hand is helpful when analysing states’ performance. WJP's measures tell something about the situation for the people of the country. Trump hurt rule of law in the US. Putin hurts both rule of law and democracy in Russia. How relevant rule of law is appears from reputation of Singapore and UAE in Islam as well as in esteem rendered Scandinavia and Finland and Iceland. 

China ranks low and Norden ranks very high. The present regime in China seems to return to old fashioned Communism that will not make the country more popular globally with the international civil society. 

Rule of law as a political regime is path dependent. Its occurrence has little to do with civilisations. “Western Civilisation” (Huntington, 1998) is a myth, hiding incredible numbers of wars and atrocities. Adding Judaism makes no difference, as anti-semitism was rampant in Christianity and Europe. 

Civilisations are not homogeneous, not even the world religions. If Islam is a religion of warriors (Weber, 1978), then how to fit the Christian knights together  with peace philosophy as with Kant or Kierkegaard. One notes the rather low numbers for Poland, Hungary and the US. 

The WJP states that rule of law is declining in many countries.  It would mean much for ordinary people if the trend globally is reversed in for example China, Russia, Turkey and   Pakistan even if democracy isn’t introduced.

1. Grotius, H. On the law on war and peace. London: Createspace, 1625.

2. Hobbes, T. Leviathan. London: Penguin, 2017.

3. Huntington, S. The clash of civilisations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

4. Locke, J. Two treatises on government. Cambridge: CUP, 1988.

5. Strauss, L. Natural right and history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.

6. Weber, M. Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

7. World Justice Project (WJP). "World justice project 2017–2020."

8. YouTube. “The western civilisation,” 2020.