Governance under the rule of law framework

Governance under the rule of law framework

Wu Yu

Taiyan Network Studio

 

No way. I have to take the United States for example, because it is easier for people to understand what I'm talking about.

Generally speaking, the United States is a good country ruled by law with a relatively perfect legal system or legal framework.In our understanding, the rule of law and governance are generally opposite.: The rule of law is to act according to the rules, to determine who you are, to control your grievances, to control the law of the people, to control the power of the people, to control whether you are responsible, right is justified.

When comparing the opposite of a thing, it is helpful to understand it. But if you make a two-choice decision, it will definitely go to the extreme. ActuallyAmerica is a society full of governance, but we only see the rule of law.For example, in the justice system of the United States, when one thing reaches the final ruling of whether it is illegal, the nine judges vote to decide, so we can see what we cannot understand: "The flag burned, the cross cannot be "ruled.

We look a little ridiculous, but the Americans have made a serious decision!Legal provisions are principles, while those who understand them are actually people.Obviously, different people have different understandings of the same terms.

The intention of the rule of law is certainty.That is to say, all decisions should be the same.The objective fact is that there are inherent loopholes in the law, which may lead to ambiguity and unexpected situations.So if there is ambiguity, there will be a judicial interpretation of this matter, and some people will feel unfair: if the result of the rule of law is still determined by people, what is the significance of the law?

Obviously, the above questioning is about to expect the law to do what it cannot do.The rule of law must be supplemented by governance by people, and governance by law.The philosophical principle of "unity of opposites" can be understood here as the different applicability: skeleton is the rule of law, and flesh and blood is the governance of people.

 

In fact, another thing I want to talk about is the development language specification. My team and I have been pondering Google C ++ style guide recently. I am constantly talking about Google's open-source team's understanding of C ++ syntax rules, and clarify the reasons for this understanding. For example, exception handling mechanism, this guide is not recommended, but in a language like Java, try {} catch {} is no longer a normal usage. Another example that impressed me is const int * P or Int const * P. Some people understand that const modifies * P, so it should be before * P; but Google's open-source team said that the C ++ language specification is actually an English model, Int Is a noun, const is an adjective, so const should be placed before Int.

 

Looking back, if we are entangled in the question of "the national flag is burned and the cross is not burned", we will become too pedantic. If we go online for this purpose, we must make sure that the judges are disconnected, then the mistake is even more outrageous.

Google's open-source team explained this: C ++ does not specify where const should be put, so it is better to unify it. Therefore, my understanding is that the judge's ruling should be more about unified rules, not necessarily which party is really guilty.

I believe that exception handling mechanisms are not absolutely forbidden. It may not be a good thing to use try {} catch {} as long as you use them in a unified manner.

 

The reason why talents are so valued is that the framework cannot solve the subtle differences and judgments. The rule of law is good, but if we leave the people's governance that can be observed, it will not be popular.