“Accomplished leaders in a democracy never diverge from the rule of law, foundational values and traditions.”

2006

Last update Oct. 14, 2023. History

Related quotes

Aung San Suu Kyi photo
Scott Morrison photo

“As a liberal democracy, we’re also committed to promoting universal values like human rights, gender equality and the rule of law. We’ve always believed in these values, it’s what makes us who we are.”

Scott Morrison (1968) 30th Prime Minister of Australia

" Our Common Hope, UN General Assembly National Statement" https://www.pm.gov.au/media/our-common-hope-un-general-assembly-national-statement (26 September 2020)

Adlai Stevenson photo
David Cameron photo
Robert A. Dahl photo
Ruhollah Khomeini photo

“Islamic state means a state based on justice and democracy and structured upon Islamic rules and laws.”

Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–1989) Religious leader, politician

Imam's Sahife, vol. 5, p. 133. (17 December 1978)
Foreign policy

Lin Chu-chia photo

“Taipei has a responsibility to share its 60-year experience of democratization and economic development with Beijing. We also have a responsibility to make freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law the core values for promoting cross-strait ties.”

Lin Chu-chia (1956) Taiwanese politician

Lin Chu-chia (2012) cited in " MAC sees Beijing reforms as key to cross-strait ties http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=198574&CtNode=452" on Taiwan Today, 13 November 2012.

Barack Obama photo

“No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. This—that is not democracy; that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there.”

Barack Obama (1961) 44th President of the United States of America

Barack Obama: "Address to the Ghanaian Parliament in Accra, Ghana," July 11, 2009. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=86395&st=&st1=
2009
Context: As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: Governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent, and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable, and more successful than governments that do not. This is about more than just holding elections; it's also about what happens between elections. Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. And no country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. This—that is not democracy; that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end. In the 21st century, capable, reliable, and transparent institutions are the key to success: strong Parliaments; honest police forces; independent judges; an independent press; a vibrant private sector; a civil society. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in people's everyday lives.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn photo

“The divergent scales of values scream in discordance, they dazzle and daze us, and in order that it might not be painful we steer clear of all other values, as though from insanity, as though from illusion, and we confidently judge the whole world according to our own home values.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008) Russian writer

Nobel lecture (1970)
Context: The divergent scales of values scream in discordance, they dazzle and daze us, and in order that it might not be painful we steer clear of all other values, as though from insanity, as though from illusion, and we confidently judge the whole world according to our own home values. Which is why we take for the greater, more painful and less bearable disaster not that which is in fact greater, more painful and less bearable, but that which lies closest to us. Everything which is further away, which does not threaten this very day to invade our threshold — with all its groans, its stifled cries, its destroyed lives, even if it involves millions of victims — this we consider on the whole to be perfectly bearable and of tolerable proportions.

Related topics