I want to thank Professor O’Neill for his nuanced and careful engagement with Mr. Mothercountry: The Man Who Made the Rule of Law. Since its publication, I have been pressed to articulate my personal stance on the rule of law and the political efficacy of unmasking it since it appears to be one of the only weapons we have to struggle against tyranny at home and abroad. One of the reasons it was so illuminating to study the rule of law in the colonial context was that virtually nothing could be taken for granted. There are no long traditions, well established institutions, shared discourses of legality, or accepted norms that support a set of practices being perceived as constituting the rule of law in a colony. Having the legitimacy of an authority under scrutiny seems to create a more robust discussion of the rule of law in a given context. I argue that it is critical inquiry into and active contestation of the rule of law that are the best methods of sustaining it. This is increasingly relevant in our own political context, for example Black Lives Matter is playing an essential service by leading an inquiry into what the rule of law means in both theory and practice in the United States.

In O’Neill’s review, he questions whether an evangelist such as James Stephen is appropriate to adopt as a model for a more critical approach to practicing the rule of law. After all, Clapham Sect members were eager to promote their own version of civilizational advance. Another Claphamite, Kenneth Macaulay, was governor in the new colony of Sierra Leone and objectionable in almost every conceivable way; I felt nauseated while reading his diaries. Evangelical impulses can lead to hubris and violence, and I am indeed guilty of cherry-picking my Claphamite. I am not saying that all evangelicals would be ideal guardians of the rule of law. It was Stephen’s humility in approaching his position that was so surprising, and in the end, so compelling to me. He did not see himself as a savior, nor did he inflate his accomplishments. At the end of his career he remarked, “I cannot but be thankful for the innumerable opportunities which have been afforded me of contributing to the mitigation, if not the prevention, of the cruel wrongs which our country has inflicted on so large a portion of the human race” (p. 52). His faith led to his discernment that he was limited in his ability to judge and therefore he never fell into an illusion of omniscience; that same faith meant that he was determined to try to help fellow human beings nonetheless.

And isn’t this the most difficult, yet essential, work of politics? Citizens of the world have suffered countless schemes based upon personal delusions. Those who are more clear-eyed about the pitfalls ahead often disengage from attempting to make a difference at all. The rule of law doesn’t solve Plato’s dilemma about the philosopher who won’t be king and the fools who chose to govern; Mr.Mothercountry demonstrates that the more we care about pursuing justice the infinitely heavier of a weight it is to carry.