Defeated in 2020 by Joe Biden, Donald Trump announced that he was "stealed" from his election triumph with a number of manipulative treatments supported by judges. In Turkey, Turkey's most crucial opposition politician, the mayor of Istanbul Ekram İmamoğlu, recognized as the favourite of the next presidential election, was simply eliminated from the election race. We besides had a case of Romanian judges, who first annulled the results of the first circular of presidential elections in November 2024 of Călin Georgescu's win, due to the suspicion of "Russian interference", which has inactive not been proven, and subsequently banned him from participating in subsequent elections.
The eventual goal of the ruling class to halt the increasing opposition to it is seemingly to ban the participation in the elections for the representatives of that resistance.
Law Against the People
The French case is no different from that. Recognising Marine Le Pen for the deprived right to run, the judges torpedoed the presidential election 2 years before the vote, utilizing 2 methods: firstly, the withdrawal of the election right (it is not average that the criminal court imposes political sanctions) and, above all, the application of a preventive measurement which fundamentally anticipates the result of the appeal procedure.
This was no coincidence: the removal of Marine Le Pen's electoral rights was simply a means of denying citizens the chance to vote for it at a time erstwhile 37% of the respondents declared their willingness to support her in the first round, which gave her a good chance of winning the second round. So it was not Marine Le Pen that was sanctioned, but first 12-15 million of its voters.
Disgrace for the People
However, it is not the function of judges to decide who can search the vote and who they have the right to support. Jurors do not have the right to find at their own discretion what is ideologically and democratically acceptable in their eyes; the right to deprive people of their choice of the freedom to choose who they want. By influencing the presidential election, which is the direction of political life in the country, judges establish themselves as voters, which is not their role. This is another example of the disdain of the elite for the people, as well as their desire to regulation against it. This is besides an example of a "ruin of the regulation of law" which was the leading subject of the last issue of the letter "Éléments".
Liberal construct
As he stated Bruno Retailleau, the regulation of law "are neither irrefutable nor holy" – for this simple reason, that they are only ideological constructs, in this case liberal. It appeared in the 19th century (Rechtsstaat) and did not mean only countries ‘subject to the rules of law’ (Carré de Malberg). Hans Kelsen recognised as meaning the State, "in which legal standards are hierarchized in specified a way that power is subject to restrictions". Thus, the regulation of law is in fact contrary to State law. However, the State cannot be the subject of the law which it implements, due to the fact that it has exclusive enforcement since its birth, and the law of the State is the only way to guarantee its survival.
Rule of law means hegemony of standards. The highest law applied in all cases is to give the last word on the political decisions of the judiciary. The way he puts it Christophe Boutin, "Legal decision devoid of normative power distorts the regulation of law according to its will – the regulation of law cuts off from any democratic legitimacy, reducing itself to the function of expressing the ideology of the caste".
Constitution vs. State
The end consequence is that we are no longer dealing with democracy equipped with a Constitutional Council verifying the compatibility of the law with the text of the Constitution, but with democracy, which is to be the product of the regulation of law. The latter, on the another hand, measure political decisions according to human rights ideology standards, as the political scientist notes Pierre Mann, "The constitutional council's jurisprudence tends to absorb citizens' rights through human rights". Liberal democracy becomes the only allowed democracy then, in which the defence of individual rights prevails over the sovereignty of the people in the event of a conflict.
The thought of the regulation of law is based primarily on the dualistic discrimination between the State and the Constitution. These 2 orders are no longer existentially co-exist, but are clearly opposed. The Constitution is established as superior to a State whose power is trying to restrict itself according to liberal doctrine, and the State must bow before it. The functioning of democracy is so dependent on it fulfilling the condition that it does not contradict the ideology contained in constitutional records.
Judicial democracy
To those who jump like goats on the pasture, repeating the litany of the regulation of law as a dogma, we remind: 1) democracy is not based on the concept of "basic rights" – the rule of making all individual desire for the law applicable to all and prohibiting any "discrimination" – but on the sovereignty of the people as a fundamental condition allowing for the formulation of a common interest and introducing a discrimination between citizens and non-citizens; 2) judges should not justice on behalf of rights but on behalf of the people; 3) legal democracy leads to social disintegration, while actual democracy sanctifies the authority of the community of the people, which consists in changing the law, even 1 that suspends certain rights.
By establishing the guardians of democracy, liberalism leaves the last word to the judges. The judges engage politically, which shows that the division of power does not warrant their ideological independence. And who will justice the judges?
Alain de Benoist
The Middles come from Editorial.
Source: https://www.revue-elements.com/category-produit/revues/elements/