We receive this contribution from Brigitte FERRARI, Head of République Solidaire in NICE
Are we still in a state governed by the rule of law and a democracy in France?
This is the question one might ask, particularly regarding the requirement for the publication of endorsements for presidential candidates.
Indeed, the obligation of 500 endorsements to be able to run for the presidential election was adopted to avoid unserious candidacies. The objective itself is not objectionable. But when it is coupled with the publication of the list of elected officials who have granted their endorsement, and it results in preventing proven elected officials from being present in the election, then one might wonder if the spirit of the law is being diverted.
Especially since if, like me and many others, one approaches elected officials to solicit endorsements, it quickly becomes clear that reality surpasses fiction.
This has already been said, but it must be believed. When a mayor confesses that he would like to give his endorsement but cannot because the General Council or the public inter-municipal cooperation establishment will deny him the grant he expects to complete work in his municipality, or, far worse for the rule of law we should be, he informs you that the Prefect refuses him building permits he used to grant because he opposed the most important political figure in the department and this will not help his municipality’s situation, one might think we have reverted to the Ancien Régime.
Let’s see who benefits from “the crime” and it quickly becomes apparent that it is about giving an advantage to the official candidates of the two largest French political parties. If François Hollande (FH), the socialist candidate, seems legitimate to the extent that he passed the primary stage among several candidates who had the freedom to express themselves in front of all French and whose election was held with full clarity, one can question the legitimacy of Nicolas Sarkozy’s (NS) candidacy.
Of course, it is customary to allow the incumbent to run again, although this is not always the case as with the last municipal elections in NICE). But the record of our current President is far from being unanimous in France, and his very person is subject to caution. As such, he has no legitimacy in my view to run again.
And yet if we look at the media, we are already witnessing a battle worthy of the second round. Only NS and FH are seen facing each other. They mutually target each other and make no room for others, and the media imposes this strategy on us. However, we are in a democracy where plurality of opinions, and even political parties, is guaranteed. Article 4 of the 1958 Constitution prescribes that “The law shall guarantee the pluralistic expressions of opinions and the equitable participation of political parties and groups in the democratic life of the Nation.”
In my opinion, this provision is no longer respected in French political life. Even if the Constitutional Council has just decided that the publicity of endorsements does not infringe this principle, it does not rely on reality for this. Therefore, a modification of the law will be needed to better protect the freedom of elected officials in the field.
There would be many other modifications to be made, particularly concerning the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and the entirety of the media, but also to restore an impartial rule of law and a true democracy in France.
If Dominique de VILLEPIN, whom I believe capable and determined to put an end to these drifts, cannot present himself to the votes of our fellow citizens, it will be a true denial of democracy we are witnessing!
