The French are decided present that it will take control of French democracy in a way that, as far as scale and method are concerned, is imitating the actions of the Romanian Constitutional Court. This, let us remind, first erased the consequence of the first circular of elections beneficial to Cēlin Georgesc and then rejected his appeal from the decision of the central election commission erstwhile this 1 did not let him to run in the re-elected elections.
In the case of Marine Le Pen, the situation is similar: whether the highly popular leader of the National Unity will become president of France, the voters will not decide. 1 individual has decided, justice Bénédicte de Perthuis. And this is an arbitrary decision as the 1 taken in Romania (the reading of the Romanian Constitutional Court ruling on the cancellation of elections is awesome due to the fact that there is no conclusive and concrete evidence there).
Ms Le Pen was liable for alleged misappropriation of more than EUR 4 million from the European Parliament's funds by hiring supposedly fictional assistants who were actually to work not in the EP but in favour of the National Unity in France. The court claims that this was demonstrated by the prosecutors of the Republic, who besides demanded the immediate deprivation of the accused passive electoral law for 5 years. And it wasn't mandatory.
The case of EP assistants is highly evaluated. Especially erstwhile it is taken into account that the reporting rules that prevailed in the EP were inactive rather loose until recently. At present, the lever has gone the another way and, as I hear from Euro MPs and those working in Parliament, the bolt has been bolted to absurdity, but above all to members of political groups on the right.
More importantly, however, we are faced with a situation somewhat resembling the decisions of the Polish National Police Office in Poland. In fact, it is hard to deny that Jarosław Kaczyński's party, speaking most delicately, had a free approach to the usage of public money. The problem is, unfortunately, it was normal. You can argue whether to the same degree or the same methods, but the norm. And yet only the Law and Justice were punished.
Similarly, in the EP: the work of assistants from the European Parliament for home formations in the country was the norm - which will be confirmed, of course without a surname, by all sincere Euro MP with at least 2 appointments. Marine Le Pen so bears highly severe consequences for something that has been widely utilized (if we accept that the charges are proven at all). However, only her political career is brutally interrupted by judicial intervention. And it must be emphasized very powerfully here: we are talking about making it very vague. It's not a common crime. Mrs. Le Pen didn't kill anyone, she didn't origin a drunk accident or commit a robbery. She was accused of being very typical in political competitions – 1 where a large deal depends on the purely discretion of the prosecutor and judge. How do we know that?
Moreover, justice de Perthuis did not gotta take Ms Le Pen's passive electoral law. The National Unity Leader (RN) has besides been sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, but this punishment is subject to appeal – unlike the ban on moving for office. Even the most utmost political rival RN, Jean-Luc Mélenachon, leader of the far left, criticized the anticipation of ruling the second sanction without being able to appeal. Not only did he – as the conscious members of the French establishment besides pointed out, that alternatively of dunking the RN and its candidate in the presidential election (which will now most likely be young, under 30 years old Jordan Bordella), the conviction will only aid him. Apparently, however, the prejudices and views of the justice prevailed.
Why Prejudice and Views? That is due to the fact that no judge, especially in specified a case, ruling in isolation from the political and social context. No, he shouldn't have. In this case, the justice should have weighed various rations, and I have no uncertainty what she should have taken. Even if she felt that Mrs Le Pen's responsibility was undisputed (which is not obvious), she did not gotta deprive her of her right to run for office – as she should have placed the French's right to make a democratic choice at the second level, much more crucial than the arbitrary assessment of the allocation of EP funds. The French would make the decision, having all the cognition of the case from the court.
But here we have another example of a democracy fighting. This is somewhat akin to the practices of companies that are incapable to compete in the free market. In Poland, we had specified a situation during the first word of the Law, erstwhile the pharmacy lobby was pushing the anti-market pharmacy act, which hit the networks of pharmacies (including Polish and comparatively tiny ones). Inability to compete in marketplace conditions causes the legislator to be tried to get a dominant position through the law. Here, too: in fear of the verdict of citizens, you gotta go to court to simply take distant their ability to vote for a specific, uncomfortable person. We had the same thing in Romania.
Let us have no illusions: the same can happen in Poland in a period and a half or after 1 June. Fighting democracy is not a defending liberal democracy, as its supporters would like to present. With liberal democracy – if any – this fighting 1 has nothing to do with it. It's a barely masked murder, hiding behind the facade of the law. Exercised in Romania, now in France, possibly shortly in Germany. From there, it came to the news that the administrative court in Magdeburg ( advanced Saxony) had upheld the decision to take out members of the AfD—unviolent rights—gun permits only due to the fact that the Constitution Protection Office considers the alternate for Germany as an ‘ectremistic party’. Therefore, part of the civilian rights of members of a legally acting political organization is deprived. So, de facto, they are deprived of their rights for their views.
What precisely are we dealing with? It is hard to interpret this series of events differently than as a extremist reaction of the establishment, among another things, to the choice of Donald Trump, and more broadly – to the increasing opposition to pseudo-democracy they impose on us. Unfortunately, part of this mechanics are Polish useful idiots outside the ellipse of the current coalition, who support its utmost anti-Trumpic narrative.
Fighting democracy is as much a democracy as it was a folk democracy during the communist era.
Luke Warches
