Writing Laws Is Quite Like Programming

In the past year I’ve taken the position of an adviser in the cabinet of a deputy prime minister and as a result of that I had the option to draft legislation. I’ve been doing that with a colleague, both with strong technical background, and it turned out we are not bad at it. Most of “our” laws passed, including the “open source law”, the electronic identification act, and the e-voting amendments to the election code (we were, of course, helped by legal professionals in the process, much a like a junior dev is helped by a senior one).

And law drafting felt to have much in common with programming – as a result “our” laws were succinct, well-structured and “to the point”, covering all use-cases. At first it may sound strange that people not trained in the legal profession would be able to do it at all, but writing laws is actually “legal programming”. Here’s what the two processes have in common:

  • Both rely on a formalized language. Programming languages are stricter, but “legalese” is also quite formalized and certain things are worded normally in a predefined way, in a way there are “keywords”.
  • There is a specification on how to use the formalized language and how it should behave. The “Law for normative acts” is the JLS (Java language specification) for law-drafting- it defines what is allowed, how laws should be structured and how they should refer to each other. It also defines the process of law-making.
  • Laws have a predefined structure, just as a class file, for example. There are sections, articles, references and modification clauses for other laws (much like invoking a state-changing function on another object).
  • Minimizing duplication is a strong theme in both law-drafting and programming. Instead of copy-pasting shared code / sections, you simply refer to it by its unique identifier. You do that in a single law as well as across multiple laws, thus reusing definitions and statements.
  • Both define use-cases – a law tries to cover all the edge cases for a set of use-cases related to a given matter, much like programming. Laws, of course, also define principles, which is arguably their more important feature, but the definition of use-cases is pretty ubiquitous.
  • Both have if-clasues and loops. You literally say “in case of X, do Y”. And you can say “for all X, do Y”. Which is of course logical, as these programming constructs come from the real world.
  • There are versions and diffs. After it appears for the first time (“is pushed to the legal world”) every change is in the form of an amendment to the original text, in a quite formalized “diff” structure. Adding or removing articles, replacing words, sentences or whole sections. You can then replay all the amendments ontop of the original document to find the current active law. Sounds a lot like git.
  • There are “code reviews” – you send your draft to all the other institutions and their experts give you feedback, which you can accept or reject. Then the “pull request” is merged into master by the parliament.
  • There is a lot of “legacy code”. There are laws from 50 years ago that have rarely been amended and you have to cope with them.

And you end up with a piece of “code” that either works or doesn’t solve the real world problems and has to be fixed/amended. With programming it’s the CPU, and possibly a virtual machine that carry out the instructions, and with laws it’s the executive branch (and in some cases – the juridical).

It may seem like the whole legal framework can be written in a rules engine or in Prolog. Well, it can’t, because of the principles it defines and the interpretation (moral and ethical) that judges have to do. But that doesn’t negate the similarities in the process.

There is one significant difference though. In programming we have a lot of tools to make our lives easier. Build tools, IDEs, (D)VCS, issue tracking systems, code review systems. Legal experts have practically none. In most cases they use Microsoft Word and even without “Track changes” sometimes. They get the current version of the text from legal information systems or in many cases even from printed versions of the law. Collaboration is a nightmare, as Word documents are flying around via email. The more tech-savvy may opt for a shared document with Google Docs or Office365 but that’s rare. People have to manually write the “diff” based on track changes, and then manually apply the diff to get the final consolidated version. The process of consultation (“code review”) is based on sending paper mails and getting paper responses. Not to mention that once the draft gets in parliament, there are work groups and committees that make the process even more tedious.

Most of that can be optimized and automated. The UK, for example, has done some steps forward with legislation.gov.uk where each legal text is stored using LegalXML (afaik), so at least references and versioning can be handled easily. But legal experts that draft legislation would love to have the tools that we, programmers, have. They just don’t know they exist. The whole process, from idea, through work groups, through consultation, and multiple readings in parliament can be electronic. A GitHub for laws, if you wish, with good client-side tools to collaborate on the texts. To autocomplete references and to give you fine-tuned search. We have actually defined such a “thing” to be built in two years, and it will have to be open source, so even though the practices and rules vary from country to country, I hope it will be possible to reuse it.

As a conclusion, I think programming (or software engineering, actually), with its well defined structures and processes, can not only help in many diverse environments, but can also give you ideas on how to optimize them.

1 thought on “Writing Laws Is Quite Like Programming”

  1. “Word documents are flying around via email” being the state of the art is exactly what I’ve expected. It’s laborious and error-prone and completely unnecessary. There’s no reason for using MS Word (or XML) when the output is just slightly structured plain text.

    Making a simple interface to github (or another such platform), so that even the most tech-ignorant lawmakers could use it, should be rather simple. Passed laws would get committed to master and everyone would gain free access to all laws including the history. Is there any reason for not doing it? Have you proposed it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.