4 ms·

Only when the rules are followed. For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.

by surgical_fire 2y ago

glandium 2y ago
The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all politicians.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  That's a claim. You should back it up. In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
  - glandium 2y ago
    Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2 years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for something very similar (party members paid for fictitious jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment would then require you to examine the difference in the severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      Your example was of a politician being condemned. It seems that the system does work as intended after all. As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did. Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.
      - glandium 2y ago
        > It seems that the system does work as intended after all. Does it though? One common thread in the comments here is whether ineligibility is or is not warranted in political embezzlement cases. If hers is justified, how is the lack of Chirac's justified? That he was not seeking to be elected? Whether or not it's actually a politically motivated difference, it's not a stretch that people question whether it is. Because it's a very convenient sentence. And let's face it, she was very likely to make it to the second round of the presidential election, and I can totally see a number of people being extremely bothered that it was a possibility, because if it did happen, if she wouldn't have won, it would have been very close (although who knows, a miracle could happen, and the political field might be less of a mess in 2 years).
        surgical_fire 2y ago
        Chirac's case happened more than 3 decades ago. Perhaps the judiciary had a different understanding on the gravity of those crimes back then. Perhaps what Le Pen did was more serious. If Le Pen won, or if she would make to the second round is meaningless. The election would be tainted by having her running. That people are burthurt that their pet right wing populist became ineligible is of no substance. If anything it proves the courts are independent, and not acting to please a subset of the people.
        StopDisinfo910 2y ago
        > If hers is justified, how is the lack of Chirac's justified? That he was not seeking to be elected? As stated in another reply, being sentenced to ineligibility for embezzlement is only possible since 2017. It simply wasn’t a possible sentence in 2011. Note that this is not because it was considered too harsh. Ineligibility was systematic before 2010 as anyone condemned for embezzlement was automatically removed from voting lists for five years. However this was judged unconstitutional in 2010 (because it was automatic and sentences have to be individualised, ineligibility in itself is fully constitutional).
        guizmo 2y ago
        I think you're wrong here. A law can't be applied retroactively except if it would benefit the defendant and the RN case is about facts that happened before 2017.
    - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
      Unsurprising. The laws making ineligibility a sanction for embezzlement, “Lois pour la confiance dans la vie politique”, is from 2017. Note also that the 2011 verdict was somewhat unusual because before 2010 when this was judged unconstitutional, Chirac condemnation would have led to him being removed from the voting list for five years and therefore de facto ineligible. Chirac was “lucky” to be sentenced during the seven years window when ineligibility wasn’t possible.
      - guizmo 2y ago
        But the case is about actions that happened before 2017. I think you're mistaken on which law motivates the judges decision in this case.
crazygringo 2y ago
That's where it gets tricky. Ultimately, rules come from the people in a democracy. If they decide they want a candidate who broke the rules, that's where it gets messy in political philosophy. Should the democratic will of the people from years ago or decades ago override the democratic will of the people now? Of course that's the general idea of having constitutions and such, but it can only ever be a matter of degree, and there's no right answer as to how much.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  There's nothing messy about this. Rules should be followed. If when rules are broken no punishment is applied, the rules are meaningless. Once rules become meaningless, everyone will be emboldened to break the rules, to the detriment of society as a whole. If you want the rules changed, vote for them being changed, don't give free pass for any asshole to break them.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Of course it's messy. > Rules should be followed. But free, democratic elections is a "rule" too -- not just a rule, but a bedrock principle. Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. The question is whether it's outweighed by other democratic concerns. It's messy.
    - ahtihn 2y ago
      > Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? All elections follow rules set by a previous electorate unless you want to first vote on defining the rules for an election every time you have an election. If Trump were to actually run for a 3rd term, would you argue that he should be able to because term limits were set in place by a previous electorate?
rayiner 2y ago
> For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules. Democracy doesn't require that, except for a narrow subset of rules relating to voting and things like that. The system you're describing isn't even democracy--it elevates lawyers and judges above the voters. Think about it: if there was a class of people you could trust to neutrally administer and enforce "the rules" then you wouldn't need multiple branches of government, separation of powers, etc. You could just make rules for everything, and trust the neutral arbiters to enforce those rules in politically neutral ways.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  [flagged]

Only when the rules are followed. For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.

glandium 2y ago

The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all politicians.

surgical_fire 2y ago
That's a claim. You should back it up. In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
- glandium 2y ago
  Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2 years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for something very similar (party members paid for fictitious jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment would then require you to examine the difference in the severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    Your example was of a politician being condemned. It seems that the system does work as intended after all. As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did. Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.
    - glandium 2y ago
      > It seems that the system does work as intended after all. Does it though? One common thread in the comments here is whether ineligibility is or is not warranted in political embezzlement cases. If hers is justified, how is the lack of Chirac's justified? That he was not seeking to be elected? Whether or not it's actually a politically motivated difference, it's not a stretch that people question whether it is. Because it's a very convenient sentence. And let's face it, she was very likely to make it to the second round of the presidential election, and I can totally see a number of people being extremely bothered that it was a possibility, because if it did happen, if she wouldn't have won, it would have been very close (although who knows, a miracle could happen, and the political field might be less of a mess in 2 years).
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        Chirac's case happened more than 3 decades ago. Perhaps the judiciary had a different understanding on the gravity of those crimes back then. Perhaps what Le Pen did was more serious. If Le Pen won, or if she would make to the second round is meaningless. The election would be tainted by having her running. That people are burthurt that their pet right wing populist became ineligible is of no substance. If anything it proves the courts are independent, and not acting to please a subset of the people.
      - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
        > If hers is justified, how is the lack of Chirac's justified? That he was not seeking to be elected? As stated in another reply, being sentenced to ineligibility for embezzlement is only possible since 2017. It simply wasn’t a possible sentence in 2011. Note that this is not because it was considered too harsh. Ineligibility was systematic before 2010 as anyone condemned for embezzlement was automatically removed from voting lists for five years. However this was judged unconstitutional in 2010 (because it was automatic and sentences have to be individualised, ineligibility in itself is fully constitutional).
        guizmo 2y ago
        I think you're wrong here. A law can't be applied retroactively except if it would benefit the defendant and the RN case is about facts that happened before 2017.
  - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
    Unsurprising. The laws making ineligibility a sanction for embezzlement, “Lois pour la confiance dans la vie politique”, is from 2017. Note also that the 2011 verdict was somewhat unusual because before 2010 when this was judged unconstitutional, Chirac condemnation would have led to him being removed from the voting list for five years and therefore de facto ineligible. Chirac was “lucky” to be sentenced during the seven years window when ineligibility wasn’t possible.
    - guizmo 2y ago
      But the case is about actions that happened before 2017. I think you're mistaken on which law motivates the judges decision in this case.

crazygringo 2y ago

That's where it gets tricky. Ultimately, rules come from the people in a democracy. If they decide they want a candidate who broke the rules, that's where it gets messy in political philosophy. Should the democratic will of the people from years ago or decades ago override the democratic will of the people now? Of course that's the general idea of having constitutions and such, but it can only ever be a matter of degree, and there's no right answer as to how much.

surgical_fire 2y ago
There's nothing messy about this. Rules should be followed. If when rules are broken no punishment is applied, the rules are meaningless. Once rules become meaningless, everyone will be emboldened to break the rules, to the detriment of society as a whole. If you want the rules changed, vote for them being changed, don't give free pass for any asshole to break them.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Of course it's messy. > Rules should be followed. But free, democratic elections is a "rule" too -- not just a rule, but a bedrock principle. Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. The question is whether it's outweighed by other democratic concerns. It's messy.
  - ahtihn 2y ago
    > Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present? All elections follow rules set by a previous electorate unless you want to first vote on defining the rules for an election every time you have an election. If Trump were to actually run for a 3rd term, would you argue that he should be able to because term limits were set in place by a previous electorate?

rayiner 2y ago

> For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules. Democracy doesn't require that, except for a narrow subset of rules relating to voting and things like that. The system you're describing isn't even democracy--it elevates lawyers and judges above the voters. Think about it: if there was a class of people you could trust to neutrally administer and enforce "the rules" then you wouldn't need multiple branches of government, separation of powers, etc. You could just make rules for everything, and trust the neutral arbiters to enforce those rules in politically neutral ways.

surgical_fire 2y ago
[flagged]