One hallmark of liberal democracy is that rights are not only granted but defended when
violated. This means citizens must be willing and able to challenge their governments in court.
In countries where citizens sue, lawyers take pro-bono or contingency cases, and
nongovernmental organizations support litigation, rights are better protected (Epp 1998). Rights
are especially better protected where citizens’ willingness to sue extends to lawsuits against
governments. In such cases, the courtroom provides a vital avenue for citizens to hold their
governments accountable and check abuses of power.
A crucial question for studies of democracy, therefore, is why do people sue their
governments? Given two similarly aggrieved or disadvantaged individuals, what makes one
more likely than the other to take action through the judicial process?
This question is especially pertinent in postcommunist regimes experimenting with new
democratic institutions. Under communist rule, citizens looked at their courts not as the final
arbiter of disputes, but as part of the governing apparatus. Courts were controlled by the same
bosses who controlled everything else, and citizens had very limited opportunities to take their
governments to court (Solomon 2004). With the collapse of communism, citizens must
somehow come to imagine this possibility. The crucial question here is: Where people are not
socialized to the possibility of litigation as a means to challenging their government’s actions,
how does the idea to redress grievances in courts first occur? Who are the pioneers in taking
legal action against governments? We explore this question with survey data from victims of the
2002 Moscow theater hostage incident, some of whom are suing the city of Moscow.
Hypotheses about Pioneering Litigation
Pioneering litigation against governments has not been a common topic of previous
research, but the literature offers some insight into why litigation in general may occur. From
Convention