Joseph Calza, municipal councilor and general councilor, has been indicted, along with three former leaders of the association (a fourth having died during the investigation process) as part of the investigation into the management of the Société de Défense des Animaux (SDA), which brought to light a very “particular and personalized” management (we deliberately use this euphemism!) during a very long period in which Joseph Calza was successively Vice-President and President before relinquishing this responsibility in 2007.
It is the current president, Patrick Villardry, who initiated the complaint that prompted the investigation and its conclusion after verifying numerous irregularities in the management he had just inherited in 2007.
Indeed, the Justice system, and it alone, will determine what is truly at stake. However, while there is no question here of undermining the presumption of innocence, it is, on the other hand, about applying what is known as the “principle of prevention” against potential culpable actions that cause moral harm to the public community.
In fact, in the conception of representative democracy, an elected official is supposed to represent the electoral body, or even better, the popular sovereignty. For this, their behavior must be exemplary.
Of course, an elected official remains a citizen with all their prerogatives, but we may here allow ourselves to say that a citizen-elected must have the trust of these citizen-voters and therefore earn it through irreproachable behavior.
However, in this case, it is clear that Mr. Calza had no interest in the activities of the SDA, nor any love for animals, as the investigating judge clearly states, in a public utility association that receives public subsidies, donations, and legacies as the law allows and provides for.
For many, many years, Joseph Calza held an elective mandate in the SDA while admitting to not being interested in management that today is alleged to be at the root of criminal charges.
Why then? For personal relationships, for political convenience (Associations are useful relays during elections). In any case, what a bad example!
After his indictment, Mr. Calza, through his lawyer, sought to downplay his position by admitting some administrative blunders. That is not the issue here, and no one should pass judgments instead of the judiciary, which, just a reminder, is a constituted body of the state.
The issue is both political and public morality: Can an elected official dispense with exemplary behavior? Are an indictment and a referral to a criminal court not sufficient conditions to consider the trust relationship with voters compromised?
Can Joseph Calza therefore continue as if nothing happened and simply wait to be acquitted… or convicted?
Should we recall here the metaphor used by Plutarch in the tenth chapter of the life of Julius Caesar (“even Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”) to explain not only that politicians must be honest but also must “appear” honest?
Or even more, the Kantian morality according to which the moral act necessarily obeys a categorical imperative (duty for duty).
What more can be said on this subject except that political action is at the service of others and not for the pursuit of any personal interest…
For all these reasons, wouldn’t it be honest for Joseph Calza to announce the suspension of his electoral mandates until the criminal court ruling?
That would be to his credit.
