The rule of life is the set of principles and values which are innate and are essential for sustaining a peaceful and flourishing society. It lays down rights of each individual and hence confers duties to others, maintaining a balance and ensuring the security of everyone’s interests.
The rule of law implies that no individual is above the law; everyone is governed by it. Rule of law is what enforces the rights and duties which rule of life provides. These two are at equal footing and each holds the capacity to influence and eventually change the other.
For example, in olden times, women played their roles which were radically different from what they are today. Although the women of those time are often seen as they were persecuted, it is a misconception. Women had a sense of fulfillment and dignity in doing what they were supposed to do. The law, then, was in accordance with this aspect of rule of life. With time the situation changed and women felt a need of empowerment. The law had nothing to support this. Here, the two were inconsistent. The rule of law resisted change which was being developed in the rule of life. Gradually, as the need intensified, the laws had to be modified. Rule of life now influenced rule of law and again, they were in compliance.
Finally, where it is evident that the rule of life predates the rule of law, it was the former which created a need for and led to the development of the latter. Also, it must not be overlooked that rule of law is what empowers and secures the existence of rule of life. We can see from the above scenario that both, rule of law and rule of life hold equal power at their disposal. A change in one can either be resisted by, or be reflected in the other. The two concepts are entangled and dynamic.
-Shiwang
Comments