Rule of law

A sound legal process uses prospective, generally applicable standards administered by authorized actors and open to review. Discretion can fit within that system when public criteria guide it.

The clearest warning signs are secret standards, retrospective punishment, self-exemption, and favors for allies. They reveal personal will replacing a rule that comparable people can understand and challenge.

Rule of law is compatible with changing an unjust rule through lawful political and constitutional processes. Its opposite is not policy change but arbitrary power: secret standards, retrospective punishment, selective enforcement, or officials exempting themselves. A legal form alone is insufficient if enforcement depends on personal loyalty rather than public, reviewable criteria. Imagine that a licensing rule is valid on its face but an agency waives it for political donors and strictly applies it to critics. The problem is not merely an unpopular outcome; it is administration by personal favor rather than a general standard, with possible due-process or equal-protection consequences as well.

Video lesson: Political Ideology: Crash Course Government and Politics #35