2023-11-04 14:20:53
TRIBUNE – In a college, a professor recently gave a lesson on the notion of the rule of law. And asked questions to his students.
The first child summarizes what he understood by saying in essence that we live in a state of law when leaders act within a framework predetermined by the citizens. And when the rulers are obliged to do so by a system of control, specially ensured by the judges. Which are there to prevent those in power from violating the rights of citizens. Starting with freedom and a series of rights recalled in various declarations of rights, preambles to constitutions and international conventions. In short, sums up the kid, the rule of law is the opposite of arbitrary.
Referring to the remarks of the Minister of the Interior who welcomed the fact that decisions had been taken – to the detriment of the taxpayer – which disregarded the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (provisions recalled by the ECHR), a student says for his part: “The rule of law is what allows those who govern to do nothing when they decide to do so or when they have no ideas, but which does not prevent even to do anything when they feel like it.”
The professor then asks if anyone can, looking at what he observes, give a synonym to the rule of law. A young man raises his hand and says: “The bitch!”
Shortcomings, ideology and ulterior motives
These children’s reactions are actually quite well calibrated. Probably because the governing elites, on the one hand, have some shortcomings, and on the other hand have an ideology, turns of mind, even ulterior motives, the addition of which causes the “shit” in question. Not to mention that certain elites, among the most “important”, who like to talk in public, try to show that they are intelligent and that they are listening to citizens by opening… open doors. Without realizing that by doing so, they cause air currents that blow away both the presumed intelligence of said elites and the trust that citizens thought they could place in them.
In reality, the rules of law can be modified (fortunately!) without departing from the notion of the rule of law.
Furthermore, what judges decide at one time may change for the future. Judges can make reversals in case law themselves. They may also be forced to modify their way of seeing and conceiving their role, by modifying other rules. Without necessarily leaving the rule of law (1). Without judges being now at the orders of power, more than they were – within the framework of the rule of law – when, where applicable, they were immersed in the same ideology as the latter. Or when they chose not to contravene his policy (2).
(1) An example: judges traditionally refusing to review the constitutionality of old laws, and refusing to say that a law could be contrary to a principle, the political power entrusted this task to the Constitutional Council (with the priority question of constitutionality). The territory of the rule of law has thus, so to speak, expanded.
(2) When, for example, judges decide that prohibiting city doctors from prescribing this or that drug that could compete with another promised to flood the market (drug that they consider useful or essential to save people’s lives) , does not infringe on their freedom to prescribe, there is reason to ask questions.
Marcel-M. Monin is an honorary university lecturer.
#rule #law #doglit