This paper examines the social determinants of the rule of law by comparing Jamaica and Barbados, two countries with many similarities, but with divergent outcomes concerning the rule of law. The research takes a comparative historical approach, specifically investigating the origins of the divergence of the rule of law between Jamaica and Barbados by focusing on the late colonial period (1937–1966). Using new data collected from archival research, state legitimacy is identified as the key factor that helps explain the divergent trajectories of the rule of law in Jamaica and Barbados post-independence. Going beyond state-based explanations of the rule of law, the analysis suggests that the rule of law not only depends on characteristics of the state, but also on characteristics of society.
1. INTRODUCTION
The study of the rule of law has a long history. Hobbes ([1651] 1958) identified the need of a strong state to provide the rule of law to avoid a social order where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” in a war of “every man against every man” (pp. 106–107). Since Hobbes, issues surrounding the rule of law have continued to be debated by scholars. However, during the last 20 years, there has been a resurgence in academic interest in the rule of law, particularly with respect to effect of the rule of law on development. There is an emerging consensus that a strong rule of law is an important and robust correlate of development. Numerous studies suggest that the rule of law is linked not only to economic development (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2001; Dam, 2006; North, 1990), but also to human development (i.e. health and education—see Dawson, 2010; Kaufmann, Kraay, & Zoido-Lobato´n, 1999), poverty reduction (Tebaldi & Mohan, 2010) and the consolidation of democracy (Diamond, 2008; Fukuyama, 2011; Rigobon & Rodrik, 2005). Over the past two decades, rule of law development assistance has become an increasingly central component of the provision of foreign aid. Billions of aid dollars have been channeled toward strengthening the rule of law in weak states; however, these efforts have met with little success (Kleinfeld, 2012).
5. CONCLUSION
To summarize, differences along three key dimensions (the race–class correlation, the orientation of the religion of the lower class toward the established order, and the structural conditions that facilitated the cultural autonomy and the development of an oppositional culture among the lower class) had developed between the two islands by the late colonial period that influenced the attitudes of the lower class toward the legitimacy of the state. In Barbados, the lower class possessed a greater degree of acceptance of the legitimacy of state authority, while in Jamaica state authority was weaker. It was these differences between the two colonies that proved to be the crucial factor that combined with the sequence of events during the transition to universal suffrage to determine whether partisan violence and political patronage were institutionalized. The presence or absence of these conditions during the late colonial period caused the divergence in the rule of law trajectories between the two islands, influencing the rule of law post-independence. In Jamaica, political violence and patronage politics were institutionalized, resulting in a deterioration of the rule of law (i.e. a high level of violence) after independence. In Barbados, the lower class largely accepted the legitimacy of the state, which hindered the escalation and institutionalization of political violence and patronage, thereby reinforcing the rule of law post-independence and contributing to its comparatively low level of violence.
