“We simplify complex phenomena for their better understanding, but because of this we run the risk of fighting not with real problems, but with those that only seem obvious. And this can lead to false decisions and random conclusions.”, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
On the example of the courts, this can be reduced to the fact that the essence of their perception of citizens not in the experience of interaction, but in belief in the symbolic role of the institution as a guarantor of justice. And this faith is a more powerful engine of behavior than knowledge itself. Society usually does not perceive the courts (you can safely substitute any other institution) as they are, but projects their expectations on them, like a screen in a cinema, sometimes utopian and sometimes false.
The dreamy image of the court is a mix of non -existent ideals, feature films and historical figures from distant countries. Instead, the reality of many courts, especially the first instance: poverty, lack of staff, worn infrastructure, pressure – is rejected as senseless, because it does not fit into the obvious and generally perceived as an excuse.
Advertising:
If the symbol does not coincide with reality, with facts, people with their best and the longer they try to ignore reality. This is very well shown in John Carpenter’s tape “They Live” in stage where the main character, tries to force his friend to wear special glasses that reveal the hidden truth about controlling society. The friend categorically refuses and this leads to a long and tense fight. The scene, which lasts about six minutes, illustrates how difficult it is to force a person who is accustomed to a comfortable illusion, to take an awkward reality.
In our case, society wants the ideal courts, as in Hollywood dramas, but ignores their real restrictions and is ready to rest with all their strength in order not to wear those damaged glasses. And this is an explosive diagnosis, both for any institution that claims legitimacy and for society itself. We, as a society, want to believe that the courts can be perfect, because otherwise we will have to admit that justice is not a given, but a process that requires struggle, compromise and, most importantly, our own involvement. But we prefer to delegate this responsibility to institutions and then indignant when they do not meet our ideas.
Sometimes it seems that this situation can be corrected simply by adopting good legislation and then it will somehow cope. But, for example, Clayton Kristensen in his book “Paradox of Prosperity” gives a wonderful, in my opinion, an example: “Let’s say, the legislation in the field of health care in Denmark has two hundred pages. But all these pages do not explain what is the motivation of the Danish doctor or why the state of the state.
That is, it is not enough to have good laws – it is necessary for people to believe in them and do, as in those laws. But what motivates them to do? It is definitely not the facts themselves. Justice is, first and foremost, belief in its possibility, not just a set of procedures. And trust is not the result of technical perfection, but a rooted cultural structure. Accordingly, you need to stop thinking about reform as a technical repair of the institution, and to restore its symbolic value in the eyes of society.
It sounds a little difficult, so I will give simple and understandable examples that clearly illustrate, why the facts do not work on their own. According to the results of the analysis of disciplinary complaints filed with the High Council of Justice after December 23, 2024, the following key generalizations can be distinguished:
About 750 new complaints against judges are received every month.
Store Composition:
94% are individuals, of which: 10% are professional lawyers (lawyers).
6% – legal entities, in particular: 3% – authorities; 1% are NGOs.
Characteristics of complainants:
86% of complainants are participants in court cases.
14% are non -participants in the case.
7% of complainants systematically file numerous complaints.
Results of complaints for this period:
The disciplinary chambers opened 197 cases (4.8% of the total number of complaints considered). 17 judges were brought to disciplinary responsibility. The vast majority of complaints are recognized as unfounded.
We go down to the step below. The text cannot ignore the real cases of corruption, which, although not systematic, cause tremendous damage to trust. It is appropriate to refer to the results of NABU’s work from 2016 to 2023. During this time, 83 judges were reported to suspicion. With regard to 20 judges, the sentences have entered into force. Over the years, the actual number of judges has changed from about 6500 to plus minus 5000. The percentage of exposed corrupt officials can be calculated by themselves. However, naked statistics do not reflect the power of a beat on trust and expectations of people, but about it a little lower.
We go on. In 2024, 5 million 300 thousand cases were submitted to courts of all instances and jurisdictions. Of these, 4 million 400 thousand cases are considered, about a million remained unsolved. The time intervals are slightly different, but the shaft is stable, so the numbers are generally correlated. In total, 5-7 million people come to the courts of Ukraine.
And we approach the finish line. In some cases, judges have to consider 3 thousand, and sometimes more, cases a year. The average time of consideration of cases in local general courts is:
– Criminal proceedings: 547 minutes
– Cases of administrative justice: 379 minutes
– Civil proceedings: 287 minutes
– Administrative offense cases: 130 minutes
These indicators are advisory, however, multiply them by 3000. The judge will take about 9.4 years to hear 3,000 criminal cases, provided 8-hour working days and without the weekend, vacations or other factors that may affect the schedule. But this is all considered in 1 year.
And we have not yet concerned the topics of non -complex of judges and employees of the apparatus, the level of wages in the devices of the courts, the general level of underfunding of the judiciary (about 40%), etc. That is, imagine the situation: you get a job and there you promise 40 thousand UAH of salaries. You work for yourself and for the first month you pay 22 thousand, this story continues, and for all calls to follow the arrangements, you are told something like “you need to use more efficiently, and your neighbor copes altogether”.
And you will say, “It’s so cool! The shock pace, with minimal investments”, but in fact – no. Such a load occurs full professional burnout of judges, as well as the quality of decisions.
The facts are generally known, not secret. They are constantly published all 34 years of independence. What conclusion can we draw based solely on such data? We may not have a perfect but stable work judicial, with a relatively small level of disciplinary The misdemeanors and corruption crimes where judges and employees of apparatus are sacrificed to their personal lives and in some places to health.
Try to go out to a crowded place and declare aloud that “in the existing obvious image of” corrupt non -waste “is hidden the reality of professional burnout and work on the verge of human opportunities.” In what time will you face, at least, with public condemnation? Chatgpt tells me that about 2 minutes.
That is, the matter is not about the facts, the reality of the judiciary is fully disagreed with its public, obvious, image. Yes, unfortunately, the impact of corruption is not linear, one loud corruption scandal causes thousands of times more harm to trust than thousands of honestly considered cases can restore it. The contradiction is that the system functions but has serious flaws, and society believes in the obvious, but does not see real working conditions. To be simpler, society sees the consequences – delay, bureaucracy, etc., and does not see the reason. And accordingly cannot see and design ways to overcome this situation. In a purely consumer paradigm, a person seeks to receive quality service and everything else is indifferent. But so they treat something alien and cold, and our brand is humanity.
The judiciary must finally tell their stories, not independently, but through communities, to show that it is not separated from society, but is part of it. In this context, communication is not a PR, but a deep transformation of ideas. Honestly and without jewelry: the judiciary is not perfect, but its problems are systemic, and are not reduced to something. Knowing the courts is not to deceive the system, but to rewrite its imaginary code and start a conversation that no one has yet. This is a soft little revolution that begins with one word, one story, one judge-speaker.
We are all a little afraid to see the truth, because it will make us recognize our own responsibility for the state of affairs and take part in a difficult, boring and thankless work on the restoration of institutions. But trust cannot be won by facts or campaigns. It is born in the field of symbolic, affective intimacy, in common ideas about justice. Are we ready to “put on glasses” and see the courts as they are, not what they appear?
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.