Hello everybody,

I confess, most people just look at you and say "whatever" when you attempt to explain such critical subtleties as:

Effective Governance vs Good Governance

Rule of Law vs Rule by law

Legitimacy of governance vs officialness of government.


But I firmly believe, that it is in the understanding of these subtle differences and the design of words and deeds that are sensitive to those differences that mark the difference between a long, drawn out, effort with to suppress an insurgent vs a much shorter, and more enduring effort to address an insurgency.
Rule of Law has to be understood as it is: a politic philosophy and not another tool from the State Building box.

In my opinion, what most of the people implementing Rule of Law do not get is that Rule of Law does not replace the social contract that fond a society.
The twist may come that in the US Rule of Law is the Social Contract: the US constitution. When rule of law is exported, either you have a social contract meeting the pre requirement of rule of law and it's a success. Or you just have a social contract that support socio-economical division of political power and you end up with Rule by Law. Rule of Law cannot be exported without being supported by the people.

And yes you have village factions, as we have conservators and liberals. (If I can add). Why do we always see the others not as complex as us? Most of the time, they are even more complex than us because less united and more fractioned.

Sorry to introduce an additional subtle difference.

M-A