In France the judiciary has made an influential decision to ban a politician from the possibility to be elected after conviction of fraud. This is just what is to be expected from the 3rd power in the organization of a democratic state. It is surprising that there was a political debate about a person convicted for a crime to be eligible for public office. Several eminent scholars published columns in major newspapers to support the judicial decision. Pierre Rosanvallon focused both on the justification of the verdict and the constitutional role attributed to the judiciary to operate as a kind of memory of the “general will of the people”, the ultimate sovereign. In the struggle of power within a state the judiciary defends individual rights as well as moderates between the executive and the legislative branch. In the theory of democracy this creates a double bind situation in which the individual has a right to be defended against the state and individuals who ask for judgment of cases one against another one. Eric Halphen has also argued in favor of the often neglected role of the judiciary to stand up for the “general interest”, a notion which is not easy to define without historical references in each country and its historical trajectory of democracy. The short debate about the role of the judiciary has strengthened the defensive capacity of the French democracy. Other, even mature democracies may turn their eyes on the decision of the judges involved not to shun away from unpopular decisions. The independence of the judiciary is part of the sovereignty of the people and non-negotiable part of it.
