Lhe #metoo wave is sweeping through political life. Left-wing parties are now in the hot seat. Not that they are more subject to sexual and gender-based violence than others, but their desire to set an example, illustrated in particular by the establishment of internal cells to eradicate certain practices and come to the aid of victims, has come up against a reality: that of the banality of these same practices in their own ranks. They have thus undone the bonds of silence, and this victory must be paid to their credit. But, in doing so, they also released a flood of reports that quickly overwhelmed and weakened them. The erratic treatment of these cases places them today on the bench of the accused when others take refuge behind the convenient screen of the presumption of innocence and the exclusive competence of the criminal judge.
Convenient screen, but quite insufficient. What does the presumption of innocence mean when the facts are admitted? Why quibble about the burden of proof when the proof is done? And if, obviously, the parties should not replace justice, why should the criminal judge be the only one justified in worrying about these acts? In many professions (doctors, lawyers, magistrates, etc.), disciplinary bodies deal with behavior deemed contrary to ethics or the dignity of the position, without waiting for the verdict of the court, which is not always competent or even seizure. And even if it were, even if it had rendered its judgment, the disciplinary bodies could still add theirs.
Effort to revise procedures
With regard to their conception of the exemplary nature of political functions and respect for the values they wish to embody, the parties are therefore legitimate to listen to the victims and to punish the perpetrators without waiting for a judge’s verdict, provided that they stick to their powers: they cannot, of course, pronounce custodial sentences or ineligibility, nor even suspend an electoral mandate, but they can exclude a member of their movement, deprive him of investiture or withdraw the means of the collective.
The problem is not that they grasp these questions, but that they have given so little thought to the principles of their action. The internal bodies created for this purpose mix genres: psychological support unit, prosecution body, and sometimes even hidden political office… Suddenly, we assume the “arbitrary choice” of “believe the word of women” ; another, a comrade is decreed to be above suspicion. One shot, we eliminate a rival; another, one asks for indulgence for a friend. Such practices allow arbitrariness to prosper, with the risk that, in certain circumstances, victims will be pressured not to “make waves”. If the left-wing parties leave it at that, tomorrow they will provide their adversaries with unexpected arguments to return to the status quo ante. If, on the contrary, they want to come out on top, they must consent to an effort to revise their procedures.
You have 53.28% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.