Compare and contrast the rule of law and the rule of man.
Answer: The rule of man has been around for millennia, in the sense that for much of history, the ruler and the rule were synonymous. The law was the will of the ruler, whether in the person of the king, czar, raj, caliph, or emperor. Regardless of the title used today, such as chairman, general, or supreme leader, the principle places ultimate power in the hands of one person, making his (or her) word and will (and whim) law, no matter how unfair, unjust, or nonsensical. Because it grants inherent authority for the ruling party to act without being subject to checks and balances, the rule of man principle is a keystone of totalitarian government.
The rule of law, in contrast, rejects the notion of an omnipotent leader arbitrarily ruling society. Instead, the rule of law, a hallmark of democracy, holds that governmental authority is legitimately exercised in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws that have been appropriately adopted and are enforced in keeping with established procedure. Ideally, the rule of law institutes a just political and social environment, guarantees the enforceability of commercial contracts and business transactions, and safeguards personal property and individual freedom. Everyone who lives under it expects every legitimately enacted law, code, and statute to be grounded in and validated by the principles of the rule of law. No individual—whether public official or private citizen—stands above the law.