It is a fledgling democracy that gained freedom from the crumbling Soviet Union in 1991. Since then, a total of 40 journalists have been murdered. Just last year four judges were removed from the Ukrainian bench on bribery charges.
According to lawyer surveys, seventy four percent of them believe corruption envelops the judiciary, and one in five respondents reported giving bribes to judges. Distrust is common between bench and media. Against this backdrop, I traveled there in March to help improve court-media relations and increase the transparency of court operations.
Chemonics International, a non-profit group seeking to enhance democracy around the world, sponsored my journey. Former Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Betty Barteau worked in Russia as an executive for Chemonics focusing on judicial education.
For several years, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has hosted visits to Indiana by Ukrainian judges. During last fall’s visit I spoke to the judges about court and media relations. Natalia Petrova, Deputy Chief of Party for the Chemonics’ Ukrainian Rule of Law Project, was one of the visitors. She asked if I might be willing to travel to Ukraine to make a similar presentation. In late January, one of her staffers, Andriy Gorbal, made the final arrangements.
He would become my “handler” during the visit.
I began my trek with a nine-hour flight from JFK to Kiev, the capitol city in a country the size of Texas with a population in excess of 40 million. Ukrainians continue to shake off what is commonly referred to as “the Soviet times.” The people revel in the brisk, vibrant, sometime excessive, hallmarks of traditional western capitalism.
Through the centuries, many outsiders have dominated its inhabitants, including Scandinavians, Ottomans, Mongols, Tartars, Turks, Cossacks, and Poles. Russians gained control during the reign of Catherine the Great, which began in the late 18th century. Following World War II, most of Ukraine came under Soviet control as a formal part of the USSR.
Ukraine was the breadbasket of Eastern Europe in the early 1930s with overflowing grain silos. Despite this reality, Stalin systematically starved more than five million Ukrainians through his collective farm policies. In the decades that followed, Ukraine remained under Soviet influence until it achieved independence in 1991.
Even today it remains conflicted toward Russia, despite democratic governments in both countries.
Ukrainian is the official language, but most people also speak Russian. In the north and west of the country, Ukrainian is the dominant language. In the south and east, Russian is the primary tongue.
When the Soviet Union fell, some communities rushed to tear down street signs and memorials honoring the heroes of the Soviet Union. The main square, Red October Square, was re-christened Independence Square. But a major street in downtown Kiev is still named Red Army Street, after the Soviet army. In the eastern city of Donetsk, a huge statute of Lenin remains a focal point in a large downtown park.
Some of the Ukrainian conflict is direct. Russia has threatened to cut off Ukraine’s supply of natural gas. Ukraine now uses Soviet built radio towers, constructed originally to block the US Voice of America, to jam Russian television signals.
Conflicts are less direct but still palpable between the media and the judiciary. Our first session was with Ukraine intermediate appellate court judges. Our goals were to educate them about court precedents and the media, and to remove some of the mystery behind the news media. I offered a perspective on US court-media relations and tried to make it relevant to the Ukrainian experience.
Ukraine courts are generally open to the public and, in many cases, cameras are allowed. The twenty-four appellate judges had significant experience with the media. But an informal poll showed that none “trusted” the media as an institution. Only a handful trusted individual news operations, and just two or three trusted individual reporters. The common complaints about the media were: they told only one side of the story; they focused only on sensational cases; they have a lack of knowledge about the law; and, yes, they are quite pushy.
Several of the judges, including a member of the Ukraine Supreme Court, were remarkably progressive about media relations. These jurists urged their colleagues to reach out and educate the reporters who cover their courts.
The journalists had their own interesting perspectives. The common complaints about the judiciary were: the process is too complicated and takes too long; judges never explain their rulings; and judges are inconsistent about when cameras can and cannot be used.
Their knowledge of standard court procedures falls well below that of their U.S. counterparts. This is partially explained because of their relatively new experience with open government. They have had it only since 1991, while our experience is over two centuries old. Journalists there have a real hunger for information, but it seems as if the courts and the journalism profession were doing little to provide it.
Journalists do have a difficult time in the Ukraine. Vestiges of an indifferent or uncooperative government bureaucracy remain from Soviet times. And there is a level of personal danger that exists for some journalists, as demonstrated by the number of murders since 1991.
The most high-profile case involved an investigative, on-line journalist, Georgiy Gongzade. In 2000, his decapitated body was found in remote woods. Cassette tapes surfaced later that purportedly record the former Ukraine president as saying something should be done about Gongzade. Three suspects connected with the government’s internal security apparatus were later charged with his murder. The most recent court hearing was continued. The court bureaucracy was overwhelmed and woefully unprepared for the onslaught of media that descended on Kiev’s smallest courtroom.
Corruption is a major problem at many levels of Ukraine society. Both the media and the legal system are part of the problem. Lawyers and judges talk about how easy it is to “buy” a good story. And one lawyer I met told me that only three of her law school professors refused to take bribes. While many do pass good students on their merits, most gladly exchange a decent grade for cash. One of her former classmates was notorious for bribing professors for good grades. She is now a judge.
Many of the judges I encountered seemed genuinely interested in reform and creating a more open society. They are keenly aware of the obstacles ahead of them. They have a long history of authoritarian control and a very closed process. A young judge I met in Odessa remarked how distressed he was at the prospects for quick improvements. He was chagrined, remarking that the Supreme Court of Ukraine had only recently added a Public Information Officer.
I told him not to be too distressed, and pointed out the Supreme Court of Indiana only added a public information function in 1995. The entire process of engaging the media is relatively new to us as well.
“It may be new to you,” he remarked sagely. “But we are in darkness.”