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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT