Key Takeaway
„Justice, more than ever, appears as an opaque science, profoundly determined by the subjectivity of judges who now practice creative interpretation of the law. […] Everything here is entirely political.”
Context
In recent years, there has been growing concern about the harmful practice of political witch hunts disguised as judicial proceedings — proceedings that serve to reduce the political uncertainty faced by those in power while increasing their chances of political survival. According to critics, this anti-democratic practice is no longer confined to South America or the United States; it has also emerged in several European countries.
Summary
In an analysis published in Le Figaro, Mathieu Bock-Côté argues that although the legal cases involving Nicolas Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen are different in nature, they nevertheless highlight the same underlying problem: the French judiciary is increasingly acting as a political player, undermining public confidence in the rule of law. Regarding Sarkozy’s case, the author points to the European Court of Human Rights’ examination of the former president’s complaint that evidence used against him violated the fundamental principle of attorney-client confidentiality. According to Bock-Côté, this illustrates how the French prosecution service was prepared to disregard legal safeguards that should apply to every citizen in pursuit of political objectives. The essayist sees a similar problem in Marine Le Pen’s case. In his view, the first-instance conviction against her, and the possibility of barring her from running in the 2027 presidential election, amounted to more than a purely judicial decision: they represented political interference in the democratic process. Bock-Côté argues that the court treated violations of the European Parliament’s financial rules as a disproportionately serious offense and, in doing so, effectively sought to sideline a political opponent. On this basis, he argues that the boundary between the judiciary and politics is becoming increasingly blurred. According to the author, judges are no longer merely applying the law; through their interpretations, they are also shaping it, while their ideological convictions may influence their decisions. As a result, he argues, the law loses its objectivity and becomes an instrument of politics. He further emphasizes that law is not an absolute system, but a set of rules created by human beings, whose application inevitably involves interpretation. In his view, lawyers and judges can often reach entirely different conclusions in the same case, demonstrating that the law is not always clear-cut or neutral. Bock-Côté’s conclusion is that although the Sarkozy and Le Pen cases arose under different circumstances, they point to the same broader trend: the judiciary is acquiring an increasingly significant political role, threatening the balance between the branches of government and the functioning of the rule of law.
