Legal literacy is an essential right — Tamilhiile Manggai G. Mohgan

Legal literacy is the practical ability to understand basic rights, responsibilities, and legal rules. It matters because laws govern daily choices, yet people are still expected to obey them even when legal advice is too expensive. Without this knowledge, citizens may make avoidable mistakes or fail to recognise unfair treatment.

For example, employees, consumers, tenants, spouses, and citizens may all need to know what protections the law provides. Understanding legal fundamentals helps someone make informed decisions, fulfil responsibilities, and notice when a right has been violated. It offers useful guidance without requiring expert legal training.

The author therefore presents legal literacy as a fundamental civic right, not a specialist privilege. Schools and public education initiatives could provide basic instruction, reducing the gap between legal obligations and public understanding. This shifts responsibility from blaming individuals toward building institutions that help citizens navigate the rules.

The chess comparison makes an abstract problem easy to understand. The author learned chess rules gradually by playing repeatedly, but knowing them did not make the author a grandmaster. It did provide confidence, reduced mistakes, and made purposeful decisions possible. Legal knowledge works in a similar way.

Someone who does not know chess rules cannot play effectively. Likewise, a person who does not understand legal rules may struggle with contracts, employment, purchases, roads, or public institutions. The key mechanism is basic instruction: it does not create instant expertise, but it gives people enough understanding to act carefully and recognise mistakes.

The comparison also highlights an institutional contradiction. Society expects citizens to follow complex laws, but does not systematically teach their fundamental rules. The author argues that public education should give people a fair opportunity to understand the framework governing everyday life.

The article identifies six categories of everyday activity connected to law. People sign contracts, purchase goods and services, use public facilities, enter employment, drive on public roads, and interact with institutions governed by law. These examples show that legal rules are not limited to courtrooms or criminal cases.

The key mechanism is shared legal coverage. Whatever career a person chooses, that person still participates in transactions, workplaces, public spaces, transport, and institutions. Each setting can involve rights, responsibilities, or decisions affected by the legal framework. Basic knowledge can therefore guide choices and help identify possible violations.

This broad reach explains why the author prioritises practical legal knowledge in schools. Algebra may be used less directly in the author’s daily life, but everyone encounters these legally governed activities. Teaching their fundamentals could prepare students not only for examinations and careers, but also for ordinary civic life.

When people must obey laws without understanding them, they can make avoidable mistakes and face unnecessary legal consequences. The problem is wider than failing to follow duties. People may also miss protections available to them as employees, consumers, tenants, spouses, or citizens. This leaves them vulnerable in ordinary situations.

For example, someone with a legal question may need advice about work, a purchase, housing, or a contract. Private legal advice is often expensive, so the person may act without understanding the relevant rule or right. The mechanism is an uneven information burden: the law applies to everyone, but access to explanation does not.

The author describes this as structural disadvantage and public vulnerability. It also creates frustration and weakens democratic equity. Greater public legal education could reduce mistakes, help citizens recognise violations, and make responsibility more balanced between individuals and institutions.

The principle exists because laws are intended to regulate society and protect people collectively. If simply saying “I did not know” automatically removed responsibility, legal rules would be difficult to apply consistently. The article states that ignorance of the law is generally not accepted as a defence, citing Hassan (2020).

This creates a sharp imbalance for ordinary citizens. A person can be held to legal obligations without having received systematic instruction about them. At the same time, many people may not know the rights and protections the law provides. The rule therefore makes basic understanding especially important, even though it does not make everyone a legal expert.

The author does not argue that every citizen must become a lawyer. Instead, the article supports practical legal education through schools and public initiatives. If people are expected to follow rules regardless of knowledge, institutions should provide a fair opportunity to learn the fundamentals.

Private lawyers provide valuable advice, but they cannot alone close a population-wide knowledge gap. The article states that legal advice is often expensive, and not everyone can afford to consult a lawyer whenever a question arises. Many people therefore face legal decisions without professional guidance.

The problem often appears before someone seeks a lawyer. A person may not realise that an employment, consumer, tenancy, family, or civic issue has a legal dimension. Without basic awareness, that person may fail to recognise a right, make an avoidable mistake, or delay seeking help. Individual legal advice cannot replace general understanding.

The author points toward public legal education as a wider response. Schools and public initiatives could teach foundational rules to everyone, regardless of income or career. Lawyers would still matter for complex cases, but basic legal literacy would help people make informed decisions and recognise when specialised advice is necessary.

Schools and public institutions should give citizens basic knowledge of the legal framework governing daily life. The author argues that legal literacy is an essential life skill, similar in importance to other practical knowledge. People need not become lawyers, but they should understand core rights, responsibilities, and warning signs.

Schools could connect lessons to contracts, employment, purchases, public facilities, roads, and institutions. Public education initiatives could extend this understanding beyond classrooms. The key mechanism is early, accessible instruction: people learn the basic rules before they face decisions involving work, services, housing, citizenship, or other legal settings.

This would make education serve both career preparation and civic life. It could reduce unnecessary mistakes, help people recognise violations, and address the unequal cost of private advice. The author ultimately places responsibility on education systems and public institutions to provide a fair opportunity to understand the rules citizens must follow.