ILNews

DTCI: Playing by the rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Christopher Lee DTCIWith a role of dice, my youngest son, Matthew, age 12, counted off the spaces with a small metal object. On the last number he placed the thimble on the square marked Boardwalk. A bright smile filled his face since he already owned the other blue space, Park Place. According to the rules, Matthew could now place hotels on the spaces, which would likely lead to his victory.

Unfortunately for Matthew, Dad decided that it would be a good time for his three sons to learn a lesson in democracy and the rule of law. “From this point of the game forward, Dad makes the rules. And the first rule is Dad gets to buy Boardwalk and Park Place for $500.” “What?!?” As you can imagine, Matthew cried, “That’s not fair!” His older brothers laughed until I bought their properties too.

On Nov. 21, 2013, protestors gathered at Maidan Square in Kiev, Ukraine. Viktor Yanukovych, president of Ukraine, had abruptly suspended talks with the European Union on association, free trade and the implementation of rule-of-law principles. When the protestors formed to voice their displeasure, Yanukovych bussed in goons to chase down and pummel the protestors. But the protestors would not be deterred. They supported each other by setting up tents, sharing food and building fires to keep warm. This was no ordinary protest.

Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire known as the “Chocolate King” after his chocolate empire, stood side-by-side with students and laborers in support. Ukrainians greeted each other, “Slava Ukrayini!” “Heroyam slava!” (“Glory to Ukraine!” “Glory to the heroes!”) Thousands sang Ukrainian songs late into the night in defiance. The Ukrainian people, of all walks of life, were demanding change.

Ukraine was now the line of scrimmage between two civilizations – Yanukovych with his ties to Russia, oligarchy and corruption representing one; the opposition, demanding closer ties with Europe and rules against corruption representing the other. The competing cultures offering Ukrainians two distinct choices.

To Americans, the decision would seem quite simple. Americans often take for granted important freedoms such as freedom of speech and expression. For many Americans, it is difficult to imagine a judiciary that is not independent. There are consequences, for the most part, in the United States for not playing by the rules.

Ukraine, however, is financially broke. They are heavily dependent on Russia for trade and fuel. The Ukrainian system lacks simple checks and balances necessary for a transparent and reliable government. There are rarely consequences for failing to play by the rules. As a result, almost nobody plays by the rules. Keeping to the status quo for Ukrainians had some appeal since there was some certainty that homes would be heated and life could continue. Russian President Vladimir Putin offered lower gas prices and closer economic ties with Russia.

On Feb. 21, 2014, Yanukovych fled to Russia. The Ukrainian people chose to seek a path toward government run by institutions and not by individuals and personalities.

Ukraine’s decision has had consequences. Russia still does not recognize the Ukraine government. The Crimean Peninsula has been lost and an ongoing insurgency in the east continues. But the Ukrainian decision seems to have been a long-term play. It has become more apparent that the Ukrainian people understand that profound changes in government may not arrive as quickly as Putin’s gas.

Poroshenko was elected Ukrainian president May 25. While Poroshenko is not free from controversy, his selection in an open and free election symbolizes a clear step toward democracy. Essential to Ukraine’s survival is its adoption of the rule of law. Few countries rival Ukraine in corruption, but Yanukovych’s removal is evidence that Ukrainian people desire a transparent government with no person above the law.

Over the next several months, important rule of law decisions will be made in Ukraine. Judicial review of legislation, judicial independence, protection of individual rights, and a defined distribution of powers between government institutions must not only be adopted but respected. Constitutional and legal principles for democracy and the rule of law will either become part of Ukrainian culture or the country will remain a poor form of oligarchy.

As for the Monopoly game, Dad, much like Yanukovych, was removed from the game for making up his own rules. As explained by my wise 12-year-old, “We are better when we all play by the rules.”•

__________

Christopher Lee is a partner in the Evansville firm of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn and sits on the board of directors of DTCI. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT