The Decline of the Rule of Law
Cases against political Opponents in Malaysia and Zimbabwe
» by Volker Hüls
This essay looks at the concept of the 'Rule of Law' from the perspective of two trials of political opponents,
the completed case against Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia and the ongoing case against Morgan Tsvangirai
in Zimbabwe. Although the context is quite different, these two trials are highly illustrative of the complexity
of the 'Rule of Law' concept.
That legitimate laws can be used as a tool for illegitimate ends points out a central predicament of the 'Rule of Law'
doctrine. It indicates that the law can be reduced to a mechanistic notion that is an instrument more than the
underlying principle of government. The doctrine, however, implies a general, overarching principle of
governance, and is often used in that way. How then does this decline from the 'Rule of Law' to a 'Rule by Law' happen ?
In the two cases at the core of the argument the law certainly becomes an instrument of government, which demonstrates
the mutation of a lawful environment to law as a mere tool of executive power. This can be explained by the weakening
of the constitutions in both countries over a longer period and the accompanying loss of judicial independence. It can
be argued that a weak judiciary is the key element in the conversion from principle to instrument. How this was
achieved and how it apparently allows the executive to abuse the legal system is the background for explaining this
dilemma. However, this is only the institutional component of the process. When examining the 'Rule of Law'
concept it becomes clear that society has an essential role to play and that a degradation of judicial quality can
be seen as symptomatic of a society that is unable to uphold the 'Rule of Law'.
© Volker Hüls 2004. To contact the author write to
» volker@lawanddevelopment.org
» download full text as pdf
