> The justification for the rule of law is inherently ideological. If the law is just another pragmatic tool for the powerful to oppress the weak, then why should the masses respect the concept?
The ideological justification for the rule of law is not necessarily opposed to it also being a pragmatic tool for the powerful.
One of the best ways to understand the legal system is as a tool for elites to secure their privileges and avoid violent confrontations over who gets those privileges.
But in order to actually accomplish that, it needs to have the buy in of the masses, who would otherwise revolt to take away those privileges.
The common person needs to believe that they too are protected through the legal system, and so it is worth following the rules and forcing others to follow the rules. This is what makes it a Schelling point.
As an aside, the "drug war" has helped destroy this belief, especially harshest for minority communities. This has resulted in social breakdown and creation of movements like "stop snitching" and Black Lives Matter.
I'm not suggesting cynicism here or that the common person "shouldn't" matter or be protected.
There's a very cogent argument about the development of laws as a way for elites to pragmatically secure their prerogatives, historically, by North, Wallis, and Weingast. Their book is "Violence and Social Orders" and there's a good paper on it here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12795
The ideological justification for the rule of law is not necessarily opposed to it also being a pragmatic tool for the powerful.
One of the best ways to understand the legal system is as a tool for elites to secure their privileges and avoid violent confrontations over who gets those privileges.