Men are social animals who live in groups and inevitably they will be engaged in conflicts in the four elements including economic interest, social status, power and values. These conflicts would lead to violent clashes to the detriment or even the destruction of community. The strongest man or group would use force to forge out a political order in which the conflicts could be nipped in the bud and a system in which the people can co-exist albeit under control by force and fear of retribution would emerge. Once this has happened a state is born. Those people who exercise power in the name of the state is called a government. The ruling process is known as governance.
The administration of society by a man or a group of men who created rules and regulations and maintained the political order by making decisions by one man or a group of men with no fixed rule but playing it by ear and dictated by situation is “the rule of men.” They could be good men with good governance or could rule arbitrarily and turn tyrannical. The power they exercised would not be checked or controlled for there would be no other powerful men to balance the excessive use of power. The quality of the rule of men is predicated upon the type of people who are in control. If they are benevolent, the people would be blessed. If they are people who abuse power, persecute the people and hold on to the reins of power for personal interest, the people would be cursed. There is thus no guarantee for good governance. The risk is simply too great to allow the rule of men to continue.
The rule of men may evolve a step further by having laws for the governing of the realm. But such laws would be enacted by the orders of the ruler who wielded absolute power. The people would have no part in voicing their opinions on the law but to take it as given. Once the people disobeyed the law, they would be punished by punitive measures. The accusation would be that they broke the law. But there would be no question asked whether the said law was something they had a part in enacting it and agreed in principle as to its fairness. This is a system of the rule by law. The rule by law is the use of law passed by the ones who control power by force to claim legitimacy for “law and order.” This is to make sure that they would be in control and in command by the laws which would have sanction by punitive measures. The rule by law is an institutionalization of the rule of men.
The rule of law is a system of government which has laws as the foundation for governance. Laws are enacted with the participation and consent of the people or the ruled through their elected representatives in parliament. The rule of law would guarantee justice and fairness in governing the realm. Such laws are enacted by the legitimate sovereign based on popular sovereignty, universally applied and enforced with sanction recognized by other civilized nations. The enforcement of law and the system of justice are to be executed in accordance with the due process of law. Interpretation of law would combine the letter of the law and the spirit of the law as well as convention and tradition to guarantee real justice for citizenry. The rule of law is supreme. But the crux of the problem is law may be used in violation of the rule of law with sly interpretation and in this case law would become a tool which would reduce law which forms the foundation of the rule of law to become the rule by law. Once the justices are not disinterested and once there are double standards in ruling, the rule of law is violated. And if the people who adjudicated a case were under the power of some people, the legal system and process inevitably would turn out to become the rule by law and the rule of men. It is most important that enforcement of law must be bona fide not mala fide. Failing to abide by this rule would spell doom for legal sanctity and the justice system.
Power seizure by force in a coup e’tat is obviously a blatant violation of the rule of law. Orders proclaimed afterwards would characterize the rule by law. If there is any special article to empower the leader of the coup perpetrator such as the case of Article 17 of the Interim Charter of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, it would be an obvious case of what is known as the rule of man and the dictatorial power vested in Article 17 would testify that it was the rule by law. It is a well-known historical fact the rule of law was blatantly violated under Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat’s dictatorial regime.
The rule of men and the rule by law are intertwined. The rule of men and the rule by law alternate and indeed the two systems can be discussed interchangeably. In the final analysis, they are one and the same. It is men who control political and state by the use of force and by abusing laws. This is done by the passing arbitrarily laws which serve their interest and goal. The rule of men and the rule by law are deviants which would not last but the sad part is by the time they have fallen from grace and lost their power, the damage to society and democracy has already been done. They have thus to be held responsible for the catastrophic loss, morally if not legally. This would include those collaborators who served the regime in whatever capacity most notably legal advisors.
It is to be noted that educated men who served the usurper of legitimate power are guilty by association. The border line between a sage and a villain can at times be very thin!