Imagine how the U.S. public would have responded if the Watergate hearings from the 1970s, which led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, were not televised?
How would the public have been able to judge the fairness of the congressional proceedings or the seriousness of the charges of criminality against a sitting president?
They would not be able to, quite simply. Television has proven to be a powerful tool in a democracy, giving entire nations the ability to see their governments at work.
Cameras are also now in many courtrooms in America.
Surely, if a television blackout was in place back in 1974, Americans would have had less trust and less insight into a landmark scandal involving a president who broke multiple laws and then engaged in a massive cover-up of the wrongdoing.
Every time an official is not held accountable for misdeeds, corruption inevitably flourishes among other politicians who believe they can get away with crimes.
Nearly four decades later, across the Atlantic Ocean in Ukraine, the same issues and principles are being tested with the trial of ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Given that this is the first time a former top Ukrainian government official has stood trial at home on criminal charges, the transparency and fairness of the proceedings are paramount.
Unfortunately, Ukrainian citizens are being let down once again.
Every time an official is not held accountable for misdeeds, corruption inevitably flourishes among other politicians who believe they can get away with crimes.
The hearings in Kyiv’s Pechersk District court were televised in the first weeks of the trial that started last month, but cameras have been banned in recent weeks.
Public exposure of the trial is not the only problem, but yet another sign that a show trial – not a real trial – is taking place.
Tymoshenko is also being denied proper legal counsel to defend herself, an even more serious violation of her rights.
If the government were confident of its case, it would open up the proceedings to scrutiny and afford Tymoshenko’s lawyers ample opportunity for defense.
The prosecutor alleges a serious crime was committed, namely that – as prime minister – Tymoshenko broke the law and cost the state millions of dollars in losses through her 2009 natural gas deal with Russia.
The state seems in a hurry to adjudicate this case, in stark contrast to the farcically slow proceedings involving the murder nearly 11 years ago of journalist Georgiy Gongadze – not to mention all the other unprosecuted past crimes from the corrupt, sometimes gangster-like era of ex-President Leonid Kuchma.
But another verdict is being delivered in a court that will matter most for Ukraine – in the court of public opinion.
Ukrainians and foreigners alike have largely concluded that the trial against Tymoshenko is a farce, an exercise in political persecution to sideline President Viktor Yanukovych’s top rival.
Farce is also a way to describe how many of the nation’s leading, oligarch-controlled television stations cover the case.
They are ignoring criticism from world leaders and experts who see the trial as another sign that Ukraine is sliding towards authoritarianism under Yanukovych. At stake is Ukraine’s fraying relationship with the West.
Cameras do not lie. They could reveal all – evasiveness or stall tactics by Tymoshenko, the judge’s fairness, the credibility of key witnesses and, in the end, the legitimacy of the charges.
