The blood of a Red Army officer runs through his Niçois veins, but he is far from a Vychinski of justice. He enjoys his profession but evidently finds it lacking in the opportunity to sufficiently change the course of events. Alongside the legislative and executive branches, “the judiciary is not a power but an authority,” explains Christophe Tukov, examining magistrate at the High Court of Nice and MoDem candidate in the upcoming European elections on June 7. At most, it provides “a series of legal tools to enforce the law and procedure.” Could this 38-year-old magistrate be frustrated by his limited power to effect change? From his undergraduate days, he felt he “was not cut out for law” except in the role where he could “pronounce it, not suffer from it.” The parties subjected to justice will sympathize.
If he “does not forbid anything” in his ambitions, he insists that “political reflection has attracted him since adolescence,” a period during which he was already posting flyers for movements similar to the Greens, or later, participating in demonstrations against the Devaquet Law project. As for the alleged pursuit of power, he draws on his situation in the Nice Côte d’Azur region to reject this idea: “In the 06, a deep blue region,” he explains with a smile, “I stand no chance.” In this respect, his position as 25th on the South-East list of the MoDem is mainly symbolic.
The turning point? It was François Bayrou who triggered it. Tukov lists the reasons why he joined the MoDem even before its official establishment: “The rejection of binary partisanship and systematic criticism,” “the choice of a constructive position and humanistic political ideals,” this “blend of moderation and impartiality that characterizes this potential third governing party.” Does the shadow of the judicial scales’ moderate stance and the culture of compromise hover above his reasoning? Christophe Tukov defends himself: “When you’re a magistrate, you’re not a naive dreamer.” Even though it “decides,” he passionately explains that justice “is not about siding with one person against another” but ensuring that “there are no longer disputes.” He embraces the popular saying: “better a poor compromise than a good lawsuit.”
The European deadline of June 7 “will be important for the MoDem,” Christophe Tukov remarks, as the issues of this election “correspond to the traditional themes of the Party and François Bayrou.” His views on the European issue? He “supports” the move by European MP Philippe de Villiers to reduce the indemnities of European Commissioners. “Generally, I am in favor,” the magistrate from Nice explains, “of limiting earnings when they exceed what is reasonable”: thus, he would favor “limiting the salaries of corporate executives as well as those of football players.”
His conceptions of Europe? “A territorial, cultural unity as well as trust between European peoples.” This culture does not, in his view, include the Christian religious dimension. Consequently, it should not be included in the preamble of a European Constitution. He rather claims the philosophy of Ernest Renan: “Europe, a will to live together.” Advocating for strengthening the powers of the European Parliament, he also demands more transparency in the workings of the European Commission: the “European citizen must be informed in advance of the ongoing workings within the Commission,” and the “Parliament should be able to debate them.” And he cites the absurd example, according to him, of Brussels regulation on rosé wine: “where did that come from?” he wonders aloud.
Christophe Tukov also expresses support for Turkey’s entry into the European Union, a “personal” position not shared by François Bayrou’s Party: “it would be a strong signal to the Muslim world that we can live together within a common political and legal framework.” In contrast, his outright rejection of France’s return to NATO’s integrated military command aligns more with the Party’s ethos: “A factually insignificant gesture but symbolically disastrous.” It will be “perceived as the end of France’s tradition of assertive independence,” he analyzes.
Certainly more comfortable with strategy and diplomacy, Christophe Tukov treads carefully when discussing the public perception left by the trial of Yvan Colonna. A trial he refuses to comment on, arguing that he “does not have all the elements of the case.” The prudence of an independent “Bench” magistrate still largely outweighs the assertiveness of the politician.
