13. On the Rule of Law:The simpler the law, the more advanced the rule of law

A nation governed by the rule of law is not necessarily a democratic nation, but a democratic nation must be governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the essential institutional framework for realizing democracy. Without the rule of law, democracy remains forever an unattainable mirage—a flower in the mirror, a moon in the water. Therefore, achieving democracy must rely on the rule of law.

Democratic rule of law is rule of law where law reigns supreme. Law holds supreme authority; no one stands above it. All must obey its dictates, and anyone who violates it will inevitably face legal sanction. Law is the citizen's creed; law is the citizen's deity.

Democratic rule of law is a rule of law that treats every citizen equally. In the eyes of the law, all are equal—no exceptions, no privileges, no classes. Every citizen holds equal importance. The law stipulates that citizens equally enjoy rights and equally bear obligations; when citizens violate the law, they equally bear the adverse consequences.

Democratic rule of law is a system where citizens enact laws. In Western democracies, parliaments now commonly serve as legislative bodies, with lawmakers exercising legislative authority. This system, refined over centuries, is demonstrably effective yet remains flawed. Its defect lies in failing to guarantee every citizen equal opportunity to become a lawmaker. Even when legal qualifications appear uniform, practical realities often deny equal chances to all citizens. Only when every citizen is substantively guaranteed equal opportunity to become a parliamentarian can the parliamentary system be regarded as a genuine democratic rule of law.

Logically, parliamentarians represent citizens, and the legislature's power to enact laws derives from the citizenry as a whole. Yet not every citizen endorses this representative relationship. How should the legislative rights of those citizens who refuse representation be safeguarded? For any citizen, the choice is either to exercise legislative power directly or through a representative. Citizens willing to exercise this power through representatives are already represented by parliamentarians. For those unwilling to accept representation, if they can exercise this power themselves, it ensures every citizen has equal opportunity to participate in lawmaking. How to guarantee citizens' direct exercise of legislative power will be discussed in our article "On Legislation."

Democratic rule of law is a system where laws become increasingly simple. Every era suffers from a common flaw regarding legislation: laws grow ever more intricate and convoluted. Today's legal statutes are vast and overwhelming. Not only do ordinary citizens grasp legal provisions only superficially, but even legal professionals—judges, law professors, lawyers—cannot exhaustively study all legal texts in a lifetime.

The purpose of enacting legal rules is to ensure people comply with the law. Yet those expected to obey the law often have no idea what it actually stipulates. To understand specific provisions, people must seek specialized legal counsel. This is akin to football players needing to carry rule commentators onto the field, lest they commit fouls due to ignorance of the rules. Isn't this phenomenon utterly absurd? In a nation that proclaims itself a society governed by the rule of law, the vast majority of citizens remain utterly ignorant of legal provisions. Is this not utterly absurd?

Is it because societal development has rendered social relations increasingly complex, necessitating the creation of exceedingly intricate legal rules? In truth, this is not the case.

Regardless of societal evolution, citizens possess only three fundamental categories of inherent rights: liberty rights, property rights, and personal rights. The core purpose of the rule of law is to protect these three fundamental human rights through legislation. The method of protection is to prohibit infringements upon these rights.

Regarding the protection of liberty rights, infringements typically take only two forms: restrictions on freedom of speech and restrictions on freedom of movement.

Regarding the protection of property rights, infringements take only three forms: theft, fraud, and robbery.

Regarding the protection of personal rights, violations manifest in two forms: physical assault and psychological attack.

Regardless of societal development or the complexity of social relations, infringements upon liberty, property, and personhood persistently take only these forms. Thus, legislation can achieve its purpose by focusing on preventing these specific types of violations.

Take fraud as an example. Current Chinese criminal law defines various fraud-related offenses, including: - Fraud - Contract Fraud - Bill Fraud - Fundraising Fraud - Loan Fraud - Financial Instrument Fraud - Credit Card Fraud - Letter of Credit Fraud - Securities Fraud - Insurance Fraud While the specific methods of these frauds may differ, their essence remains the same: perpetrators deceive victims into believing falsehoods to obtain property, prompting victims to voluntarily hand over assets. Given this core similarity, why is it necessary to create so many distinct offenses based solely on varying methods? Would it not be more appropriate to uniformly classify any act of deception committed for the purpose of obtaining property as fraud? Furthermore, from the perspective of deception, acts such as selling counterfeit goods, making false advertisements, or misappropriating trademarks are fundamentally fraudulent and could easily be subsumed under the crime of fraud. Establishing a single crime of fraud could encompass the dozens of existing offenses. Would this not make criminal law simpler, clearer, and easier to learn?

The purpose of criminal law is to deter and combat crime. Does establishing dozens of separate offenses truly combat fraud more effectively than a single fraud offense? The answer is clearly no. If not, why does the trend of increasingly complex legal provisions persist across every era?

The reason is that certain parties benefit from increasingly complex laws, as complexity creates more avenues for profit. Generally, those who profit from legal complexity include: governments and government officials, courts and judges, law schools and legal professors/experts, and lawyers.

The more complex the law, the greater the government's power, and the more opportunities for government officials to profit through that power; The more complex the law, the more cases courts handle, and the more opportunities judges have to benefit; The more complex the law, the greater the need for specialized law professors to teach it, allowing legal experts to demonstrate their value; The more complex the law, the more citizens require lawyers for legal assistance, increasing lawyers' caseloads.

While these entities profit from legal complexity, ordinary citizens are its victims. Therefore, a truly democratic society will strive to simplify laws. Simpler laws are easier to learn, easier to comply with, and better at ensuring fairness. Legal scholarship should focus on how to resolve social issues with the simplest rules possible, rather than using social problems as an excuse to continually complicate legal provisions.

Democratic rule of law is rule of law where citizens universally understand the law. From a citizen's perspective, laws can be divided into two categories. One category consists of foundational laws relevant to everyone; the other category consists of professional laws relevant to different occupations. For example, the Constitution, Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Administrative Law are foundational laws pertinent to every individual. Laws such as the Teachers' Law, Physicians' Law, and Lawyers' Law are professional laws specific to certain occupations. Every citizen must learn foundational laws; professional laws should be studied according to one's occupation.

To promote legal literacy, in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, law should be a required general education course for all citizens. Every citizen should study law continuously from elementary school through university. Since laws constitute the social rules every citizen must abide by, every citizen should thoroughly learn this set of rules. Citizens in a democratic nation should possess a profound understanding of the law, enabling them to resolve the vast majority of legal issues independently without requiring a lawyer's assistance. In other words, in a democratic country, fewer lawyers and fewer judges in society indicate a stronger rule of law.