What Politicians Mean When They Say Rule of Law

Researchers fed a century of parliamentary speeches into a computer. They wanted to see how the phrase rule of law changed over time. The study looked at debates in the UK and the US. It used a method called diachronic word embeddings. That means tracking how words appear near each other across decades.

Scholars often split the concept into two camps. One camp calls it thin or procedural. That focuses on rules courts and fair processes. The other camp calls it thick or substantive. That adds rights democracy and justice. The computer analysis showed a clear pattern.

Procedural words like rules and judiciary stayed tightly linked to the phrase. Their connection barely wavered. Substantive words like rights and democratic principles drifted away. They became less common in the same speeches. Yet rights never vanished. They still show up almost as often as the procedural terms.

The data comes only from official legislative records. That means the picture reflects what elected officials say in formal settings. It does not capture court rulings media coverage or public opinion. Other countries might show different trends. The authors warn against applying these findings everywhere.

Language shapes how power works. When leaders say rule of law they may mean something narrower than before. The shift happened slowly across generations. It raises questions about what values get protected. The words we choose can hide what we lose.