“We must not howl with the wolves, otherwise we will no longer be able to live with each other,” believes Jean Viard

The case of the MoDem parliamentary assistants is therefore currently being examined before the Paris criminal court, with François Bayrou among the defendants. And tomorrow, Monday November 6, the trial ofEric Dupond-Moretti before the Court of Justice of the Republic. An unprecedented situation for a Minister of Justice. Decryption with sociologist Jean Viard.

franceinfo: There have always been trials, there have always even been political figures accused. But has anything changed in our perception of things?

Jean Viard: I think we must first say that exemplarity is a bit of a myth. Look at the SAC (Civic Action Service) with Charles Pasqua, the Urba affair, which was the basis of the financing of the Socialist Party, which also allowed it to conquer power in 1981. Permanently, politics, including to finance itself, obviously has means that are a little twisted, including for a long time, because there were no rules, and we had diversion systems. And so, I don’t really believe in setting an example.

We are in a society that dreams of transparency. Me, I love the right to be forgotten, I love privacy. The MoDem, well, it’s a matter of political organization, I don’t know what the reality of the matter is obviously. If they did that, let them be condemned, of course, but it is only an offense of financing a political party. Is this a moral offense? Is this an offense against the ethical value of men? I do not think so. But I would say the same thing for the FN, since at the time, it was the FN which also had this type of question. We must be very careful about what is reinforced by social networks.

What is transparency? Normally, we say: he has served his sentence. But normally, when we have served our sentence, we enter the circle of citizenship. And that’s what’s very complicated in our time, is that basically, there is no longer this right to be forgotten. I’ll tell you honestly, it bothers me, and it worries me, because it will push a kind of moralistic attitude, which is not necessarily good.

You take the story of Monsieur Dupond-Moretti. The question is: can a political decision be judged by a judge? Can justice judge a political act? Whether we judge a politician, if he beat his wife, if he robbed a bank, if he stole a wallet, there is no debate, it is an offense which does not fall under its political function.

But are we not wrong to give justice the right to judge the action of a politician in action, since here, what we criticize Mr. Dupont-Moretti are actions like minister ? These are political decisions by the minister which were accepted, politically. On this, these are subjects where we must not howl with the wolves, otherwise, we will no longer be able to live with each other.

And at the same time, it is not his orientation, his political inclination that is being judged this week, nor that of the MoDem. Is this how to use their function?

Of course, but is it worth it that for ten years, there is a sort of impossibility of access to politics, particularly with regard to François Bayrou? I do not think so. What I mean is that this is not an act that should, in my opinion, prevent continued public action.

This trial of the Minister of Justice, whatever the outcome, is in any case proof of the persistence of the separation of powers. A representative of the executive power can be implicated by the judicial power, who can examine his case?

Yes, but I honestly think that this court of the Republic, many people say, is undoubtedly an anomaly. I’m not sure it was a good idea. We wanted to increase the number of safeguards, and that is good. We have set up regulated financing systems. Let us condemn people who do not respect the rules, absolutely. Let them be reimbursed, absolutely. But then, let’s not make it a society of transparency, the society of transparency, you know, it’s difficult to live in, I think.