It is the old story. We have heard it many times, for the question never seems to go away. Why is Russia lacking true democracy? (Actually, we might rightly ask, where does such a society exist, for we hear complaints from blacks in America, the lower classes in England and women everywhere?) While such things as happiness, love and wealth are all relative, of course, it is generally agreed that values such as justice and law in Russia leave much to be desired. Nor can we deny that in these last five years many positive things have occurred. Still, the glass is half empty, rather than half full.


Certainly, for the president of Russia himself to have called a news conference last August to say that there is "little democracy" in today's Russia, the idea must be taken seriously. As we have seen, national leaders tell us how everything is peaches and cream, especially when elections are approaching. President Boris Yeltsin asserted that democracy has not yet found its way into "the heads of the people," that government officials are "arbitrary" and, finally, that there is no "legal system" for the "protection of human rights."


The president must be applauded for his candor. In fact, he may have exaggerated somewhat to make the point. After all, there is a constitution in Russia, there are lawyers and judges and courts, and a free press and religion and other positive signs of a nation struggling to build a functioning democratic society. There is an awareness of "unfinished business," before justice can be achieved.


But is Yeltsin joining the chorus or leading the parade? One hears many voices echoing these sentiments, naturally, and not only in the legal community. It is mostly journalists and intellectuals and the prostoi narod, or ordinary people, who warn of the imperfections and dangers of the current situation, of how the militia trample on the basic rights of citizens to move about without government interference and of defendants being kept in jail for lengthy periods without trial or judicial review. Regardless who came to it first, the people or Yeltsin, it is a healthy sign that there is a general consensus that democracy has not yet become a part of the consciousness of the population at large.


The signs of this are everywhere, but principally in the failure of the people to exert pressure on their political leaders to complete the legal reforms that have been promised. The mood is one of resignation and apathy.


In these circumstances, people are fond of quoting their pundits, for Russia's rich history has produced some great minds who have been quick to capture the spirit of the times with an unforgettable phrase. In this case, it is probably Nikolai Chernishevsky, who asked, Chto delat?, or "What is to be done." The usual answer these days, unhappily, is that "These things take a long time," "We have no traditions" and "One must be patient."


This is not to say that people have forgotten the law initiatives of Catherine the Great, the Reforms of 1864, the Revolution of 1905, the Dumas, the February and October Revolutions, Lenin, communism and perestroika, the events of the last five years and all the other bits and pieces of Russian history.


Of course, everything takes time, whether the preparation of a good meal, the building of a house or the confession of one's soul. But it is good to remember that time is something that passes and in and of itself may produce little or nothing. Is it perhaps the case that some effort is needed, that is, action? As Leonard Shapiro, the British lawyer and long-time student of Russia has observed, the study of law and nations teaches that society can only progress by evolution, and not by convulsions, by growth and not by surgery dictated by a belief in some system. The eminent Oxonian Sir Isaiah Berlin has unforgettably said as much.


Indeed, let us be clear that the action required is not in the category of clashes or violence, of which Russia has seen more than its share. What is called for is education in democratic processes, exercises which are within everyone's easy grasp. Here, still another Englishman, John Stuart Mill, may be of some help. In a reference to one of the most vital democratic institutions, he made some penetrating observations. He wrote that when men and women join together by way of sitting on a jury in court to judge the destiny of one of their fellow human beings, they are involved in a process from which they learn a valuable lesson in citizenship, out of which experience they become better citizens of their country.


Naturally, this can be realized, and these lessons can be learned by the people of Russia only if jury trials take place throughout the country. Alas, presently, just nine of 89 regions afford people that opportunity. Surely, an alarming contradiction of the constitution, according to many. Once again, the question: How can jury trials be extended to all of Russia?


Should we wait for politicians to do it? Or the Council of Europe, or the United Nations? Or the people of Russia? As we all know by now, some people are opposed (for very sincere reasons) to reform and particularly to the jury system. Let us not wait for them, as they will always find an excuse, such as lack of money or a shortage of qualified lawyers. And, let us be frank, it is not the small army of foreign lawyers and "experts," such as I, who will bring democracy to Russian justice.


Reasonably speaking, lawyers and judges, city councils, mayors, governors and above all the people should be insisting that juries be available where they live. The people should want their leaders to give them the opportunity to participate in this democratic exercise by having access to jury service. Having lost faith in so many other initiatives of recent years, struggling to survive, this is one institution that ordinary Russians still believe in. It is the one place where they can exert influence, where corruption and political pressure may be defeated, where justice will prevail. People must not be deceived into accepting a system of geographical discrimination against juries.


One can only hope and urge that those who are committed to justice and democratic institutions in Russia -- lawyers, judges, intellectuals, politicians, journalists and most of all the prostoi chelovek, or ordinary person, will continue to fight for the perfection of legal reform in Russia.


If, as Yeltsin says, there is little democracy in Russia, then the means to expand it may be for Russians to serve on juries, since they will learn about real justice in this way. For this to take place, however, there must be jury trials all over Russia.


After all, who can be satisfied to see true justice in the courts of a neighbor city, but not in one's own?





Nicholas Arena is a legal expert with the American Bar Association in Moscow's Central and East European Law Initiative. He contributed this article to The Moscow Times.