Can a criminal record really prevent elected officials from governing?

In politics, the dock of the accused is growing, on the right as well as on the left. On the Republican side, historical figures are waiting to know their fate. Nicolas Sarkozy will be judged on appeal from March 16, in the Libyan financing affair. The former president had already been definitively convicted in the wiretapping affair and that of his campaign accounts.

The candidate for mayor of Paris, Rachida Dati, for her part, will go to court in September, suspected of having received 900,000 euros from a Renault subsidiary without having actually worked there.

On the side of La France insoumise, MP Raphaël Arnault sees his past resurface. In the midst of controversy surrounding the death of young Quentin Deranque in Lyon, the media world highlights his links with the anti-fascist movement Jeune Garde, suspected of violent actions. And discovered that the MP himself had been convicted in 2022 for violence in a meeting during a demonstration.

Legitimacy based less “on skills than on the choice of voters”

Public opinion is regularly outraged by these less than exemplary CVs. But, in France, a criminal record does not prevent you from governing. As distrust in the political class erodes, one idea is gaining ground.

What if justice automatically made convicted people ineligible? After all, teachers, police, doctors or bankers must present a clean record. Politicians can often sit on the municipal council or in assemblies with complete impunity, which can taint their credibility.

“In French law, elected officials do not exercise a profession but a mandate,” recalls Luc Foisneau, philosopher and author of Manners of Government. Their legitimacy is based less on skills than on the choice of voters.”

But who ultimately has the power to decide: the judges or the people? France is experiencing a judicialization of political life. Since the 1990s, it has joined international conventions against corruption and has put in place means to conduct investigations and prosecute elected officials suspected of embezzlement.

“Convicted people were even automatically ineligible until 2010 in several cases provided for by the Electoral Code,” explains Fabien Bottini, professor of public law. Then a 2010 decision by the Constitutional Council led to a reform of the law, based on the principle of individualization of sentences, resulting from the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789.

Since then, it has been up to judges to assess on a case-by-case basis whether ineligibility is appropriate. “The judge takes into account the attitude of the accused and can reduce the sentence if he recognizes his wrongs or considers that he was able to act for the public good,” explains Fabien Bottini.

The Marine Le Pen case

National Rally MP Marine Le Pen hopes to have her sentence of five years of ineligibility annulled at first instance and enter the 2027 presidential race.

On trial for embezzlement of public funds in the MEPs’ affair, she initially denied any fraudulent “system”. Then, she qualified her defense on appeal, admitting that unintentional errors could have been made. Will she convince the judges? Response on July 7, 2026, the expected date of the decision.

This deadline, set well before the presidential elections, owes nothing to chance. It allows the justice system to avoid accusations of manipulation of the political agenda as much as possible. Because many elected officials – often themselves targeted by investigations – denounce a “government of judges”.

According to their vision, justice does not have to decide on their ineligibility and the fate of each candidate is in the hands of the sovereign people. A point of view virulently defended by a certain Donald Trump in the United States. With all the risks of authoritarian drift that this entails.