Consider the alternative to American litigiousness

American litigiousness is on my mind today: In his excellent roundup and commentary on the recount in Washington State, Zach notes that, "As perverse as it is, litigating an election is rather American." President Bush has decided that Americans are too litigious, and he plans to make preventing "lawsuit abuse" a top priority. (What about insurance premium abuse, Mr. President?)

Zach's argument against litigating close elections is right on the mark. But it occurs to me that another ongoing Florida-like election debacle reveals the underlying wisdom of a system that still allows for the option of litigation. Ukraine's ongoing presidential election has included a close result, accusations of fraud and disenfranchisement, and intervention by the Ukrainian Supreme Court. It has also included the attempted assassination by dioxin poisoning of Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko, most likely by the corrupt alliance of totalitarian officials and business oligarchs who oppose his pro-democracy, pro-West, anti-corruption vision for Ukraine. The picture of the formerly dashing Yushchenko, pocked and ruddied by an opposing force's violent attempt to keep him from power, litigating the results of a corrupt election is a metaphor for the crossroads at which Ukraine finds itself, between a Hobbesian past and a future governed by legitimate institutions and the rule of law. In peaceful, stable, just societies, litigation allows for conflict without violence. So the next time you hear somebody lament American litigious, consider the alternative.