—Adam Bodnar, Professor of Law, SWPS University in Warsaw
[Editor’s Note: This is one of our ICONnect columns. For more information on our 2026 columnists, see here.]
One of the major challenges concerning rule of law in the contemporary world is the understanding of this principle by regular citizens and voters. When populists attack judges, undermine credibility of the legislative process, violate the principle of judicial independence, and provide easy solutions to different problems, we can feel a steady erosion of democratic values. The contemporary coup d’etat does not happen overnight. It is a result of consequent factual and legal actions that change conditions of the game. Courts are becoming less independent, judges are fearful of their own decisions, and the prosecution service implements direct or implicit orders of politicians. After some period of time, the justice system works differently and major populist-political objectives – centralization of state power at the cost of separation of powers and operation of “checks and balances” institutions – are achieved.
Polish experience shows that when such threats arise, it is mostly the older generations of citizens that react. In their collective memory, there are different chapters in history when the justice system had been abused. They remember the police brutality and lack of real action by the state, prosecutors implementing political orders, and subservient judges – judges who sometimes were members of the communist party themselves. Such knowledge is limited among younger generation. Those who were born in liberal democracies do not have such an experience. Nor do they have many occasions to interact with courts, prosecution service or police. If abuses of power happen, negative experience is shared by a relatively small group of active citizens.
Therefore, the contemporary education on rule of law and human rights should put a special attention on these issues. One cannot defend rule of law when the basic knowledge of how the system is operated (or in some cases abused) is lacking. The Polish Constitution of 1997 starts with the beautifully written preamble. It says that we should be “Mindful of the bitter lessons of history, when human rights were violated in our homeland.” In my opinion it is an instruction to authorities that historical examples should be looked to for guidance on why to protect rights and how to shape the constitutional legal system.
Recently I had a meeting with German students, whose parents and grandparents were born in the former GDR (German Democratic Republic). I thought deeply about what kind of historical movies could be interesting for them in order to illustrate how the legal system worked. I contemplated that the threat coming from new populists on a democratic scene is underlining the need for a proper rule of law education in Germany. The first idea was the “Bridge of Spies” by Steven Spielberg[1], about famous exchange of spies in Berlin and importance of the right to self-defence. Then I thought about the movie “Life of others”[2] (Das Leben der Anderen) about the omnipotent Stasi surveillance of citizens. Finally, I came to the conclusion that in fact these two stories are deeply rooted in the Cold War and reality of totalitarian state. I needed something that would present real, daily difficulties connected with the operation of the justice system in non-democratic state. A third idea came to my mind.
Some time ago, I have bought a great book by Inga Markovits “Justice in Lueritz. Experiencing Socialist Law in East Germany”, published by Princeton University Press in 2010[3]. Professor Markovits conducted deep research of the court archives of one particular city in Eastern Germany. She used the fake name “Lueritz” to protect the privacy of people involved in the book. It is a city of around 50.000 inhabitants.
In this book, we find plenty of examples of how socialist law worked in practice, how courts, prosecutors and judges acted, and how the communist party influenced courts. It is not a black and white description – reading it and reviewing different examples, one sees the shades of gray – of how political instrumentalization and subordination intertwines with the search for rationality, legal discipline, and traces of rule of law interpretation of provisions. One can also learn how the system transformed over time and reacted to political developments, including the steady decline of legitimacy by communists.
In the book we find an interesting description of one specific case. In October 1988, there was a court drama involving a local producer of chickens. It is a story of Mr. Ockham, who was running a state-owned cooperative responsible for the early stage production of chickens, from egg incubation to the first week of chicks. Then the chicks were transferred to another place, where they would fatten. Subsequently they were slaughtered and sold to groceries and markets. It was like an assembly line, delivering one third of all chickens for the whole GDR. And in the communist economy, everything was based on preliminary planning, not necessarily on supply and demand requirements. At a certain time, Mr. Ockham’s cooperative was contracted to provide 500.000 chicks. The production line worked properly. But due to oversupply of chickens in the market, his contractors did want to accept another “tranche” of young chickens, as they were not able to make space in production line and magazines for them. He desperately wanted to contact them and find a solution, which was not that easy in times without mobile phones and internet. Being desperate, his cooperative had to kill and bury around 40.000 chicks and 60.000 eggs. The mass grave has been found by bikers and the press was notified. Prosecutors got interested. But above all, the communist state did not accept losing any food, regardless of reasons and mistakes in the general planning. So, the case became ideological and highly political.
Mr. Ockham was charged with disrupting the socialist economy and with intentional destruction of foodstuffs. All the judicial actors were aware that it is not a case for the court to decide, that such things may happen and he should not be blamed for decisions taken. But because the case concerned a question crucial to the socialist economy, it was under strict observance of the communist party. Interestingly, two weeks before the trial Erich Honnecker made a statement that some ‘comrades’ “resorted to illegal solutions by destroying 100.000 chickens”. In Honnecker’s opinion this was unacceptable and it was good that prosecutors intervened.
Mr. Ockham was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison, with two years of probation. It seems that the court had a difficult giving a more severe verdict, taking into account its general assessment of the case, but could not acquit due to obvious political pressure. Mr. Ockham, when asked about the case, did not blame the court. He said it was the fault of the state. For him, it was obvious that the court did not act independently. In 1990, the farmer was pardoned by the court of Federal Republic of Germany.
What does this case tell us? It is an interesting example of how the case of a regular person may collide with political interests, here in the context of a socialist planned economy. The public character of the case creates tension for political intervention. Although courts would probably have preferred to act in accordance with the law and common sense, the political pressure did not allow them to adjudicate differently. But then they sought some way of resistance by giving the lowest possible sentence. And finally, courts were perceived as a pure instrument of the authoritarian state – they were not expected to issue independent and fair judgments.
In a nutshell, this case in my opinion shows how various abuses of judicial independence may occur. Although the story happened in the GDR, it is in fact not so different from today’s realities of countries suffering from democratic decline. It should be viewed as a warning of how the omnipotent state may behave towards a regular citizen, how judges could be under pressure. Maybe nowadays the factual basis could be more complicated and sophisticated, but the legal systems, even in contemporary democracies, could be fragile and not mature enough to resist some political temptations. The pressure may originate not from direct instructions of a political party, but also due to social media or hate speech towards individual judges or prosecutors. Historical examples could be used for rule of law education and awareness raising. We should look for such cases that are relevant to people’s lives, that illustrate this sensitive relationship between executive power and judiciary, and that show how public opinion (sometimes artificially amplified) may constrain independent decision-making.
In this context, it is great news that recently numerous institutions undertook an effort to prepare guidelines of what the rule of law means. Nine institutions, working together, prepared a short leaflet, entitled: “The Rule of Law and why it matters. Explained”.[4] The institutions that prepared it and endorsed include: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, EU Fundamental Rights Agency, OSCE ODIHR, European Institute of Gender Equality, European Network of National Human Rights’ Institutions, European Network of Equality Bodies and EEA Grants. The leaflet includes an explanation of general definitions as well as six basic principles written in plain language. Each principle is accompanied with 2-4 practical examples how those principles could be violated (e.g. “If your employer is a powerful local figure and you take them to court, you should be able to trust that the judge will rule fairly based on the facts and the law”).
We should be so lucky that this leaflet, prepared in an accessible and easy to understand way, is shared among citizens, endorsed and used in a daily work by teachers, educators, activists. I hope that also judges, attorneys and prosecutors, who are participating worldwide in different programs of civic education may take advantage of this resource.[5] Certainly they can add different practical examples, from their experience, how those principles are violated. And historical examples – such as the one from “Justice in Lueritz” – could also be helpful to illustrate relevant points.
But the question is whether this is enough. Please note that the young generation is living in a world that has its own problems and evils. I think that the great challenge for rule of law guardians is to explain principles with the use of examples that are relevant to their daily life.
When Polish educators made their training in schools within the “Constitution Week” (Tydzień Konstytucyjny)[6] many of them used the example of a teacher who is arbitrarily restricting access to mobile phones during school teaching. For example, they analyzed whether such an action is proportional, what could be the legal ground (internal school regulation or the legislative act), how pupils could be warned, what to do in a situations of emergency etc., what happens with mobile phones at breaks, and whether there is any remedy against possible arbitrary action of a teacher. This one example gave an opportunity for a number of insightful answers, discussions and consideration of practical examples. Interestingly, quite recently the Polish Parliament passed a law restricting the use of mobile phones in schools.[7]
I can imagine that today’s discussions around rule of law should not just concentrate on abstract questions of abuse of power relating to the situation of entrepreneurs or politicians. They should touch upon issues that have daily relevance for lives and well-being of young generations as much as possible. I can imagine that most of them are concerned with the impact of AI and new technologies on their lives. In case of deep fakes, do they really have remedies to react and fight for their dignity, when big tech companies use all their resources to defend their business model? What if artificial intelligence agents create more problems than solutions? Is there a court (or other state institution) able to resolve their claims? If their personal data is leaked, can they realistically claim damages and a proper reaction from the state? Finally, if they decide to participate in environmental protests, can they claim real protection of their rights vis-à-vis the state or corporations?
Understanding how the legal system works is more important than ever. Ultimately, only citizens who are aware of their rights are in a position to defend democratic institutions when populist narratives offer seemingly simple solutions to complex problems. For rule of law education to be truly effective, however, it needs to be implemented on a large scale and tailored to the needs, experiences, and emotions of different generations. It is encouraging that international institutions have taken the lead by preparing accessible and engaging educational materials. The next step lies with individual states and domestic stakeholders, who have a crucial role to play in bringing rule of law education to citizens and embedding it in national contexts.
Suggested citation: Adam Bodnar, Rule of Law Education – Different Generations, Different Needs, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Sep. 17, 2026 at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/rule-of-law-education-different-generations-different-needs/
[1] Bridge of Spies, 2015, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3682448/
[2] Das Leben der Anderen, 2006, https://www.imdb.com/de/title/tt0405094/
[3] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691143484/justice-in-luritz
[4] https://fra.europa.eu/pl/publication/2026/rule-law-and-why-it-matters-explained
[5] I was impressed recently by the action “Justice in Motion” organized by judges from three US states. See Michael Donnelly, Robert Orr, As retired US judges, we’re not used to speaking out. But we cannot be silent, Guardian, 2 August 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/02/judges-lawyers-partisan
[6] Details about a project are available at https://stopraw.pl/projekty/tydzien-konstytucyjny/
[7] Law of 3 July 2026 on amendment of the Educational Law, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 3 August 2026, item 1036, available at https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20260001036/O/D20261036.pdf