Showing posts with label Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Show all posts

04 August 2011

David P. Hamilton : French Left Could Prevail in 2012

Martine Aubry of the Parti Socialiste (PI) and Nocolas Sarkozy of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UPM) could end up in a runoff for the French presidency. Image from Reuters.

Letters from France VI:
The French presidential election of 2012
Sarkozy won in 2007 over a weak PS candidate, Sègoléne Royal, but his politics don’t reflect those of the majority of French voters...
By David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog /August 4, 2011

[This is the sixth in a series of dispatches from France by The Rag Blog's David P. Hamilton.]

PARIS -- In 2012, there will be a presidential election that offers at least some hope and opportunity for the left, the one that takes place next spring in France.

The president of France is elected every five years. Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in 2007 and will stand for reelection in 2012. Given the conservative Sarkozy’s persistent unpopularity, he’ll probably lose to the candidate of the Parti Socialiste (PS) and we will have the first socialist president in France since 1995 and only the second since the founding of the Fifth Republic 53 years ago.

And there is a good chance it will be the first woman president of France as well.

French presidential elections are fundamentally different from American presidential elections. They are largely publicly-funded and tightly regulated. Compared to U.S. federal elections, those in France are qualitatively less corrupted by corporate financing. Corporate contributions to political candidates or parties were prohibited in 1992 during the presidency of Francois Mitterrand, the only previous PS president. A study by the U.S. Library of Congress states,
The intent of the [French] Parliament was to cut any link between the economic world and the political world. To compensate for this loss of funding, it sensibly increased public funding.
Unlike in the U.S., French campaign expenditures are capped. That cap was roughly $32 million in 2007 for the two candidates making it into the second round finals. Obama plans to spend $1 billion getting reelected in 2012 and Republicans will try to match him.

In France, personal campaign contributions are capped at $6,300. All candidates are given free and equal TV time and they can’t buy more. This is not to say that no one cheats or that corporations still don’t have undue influence, but the official rules are profoundly better than those in the U.S. In France the government is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the mega-corporate hegemony and democracy still has a chance.

French presidential elections involve two rounds of voting, two weeks apart. To maximize participation, the elections take place on Sundays, not Tuesdays -- a work day -- as in the U.S. The first round in 2012 takes place next April 22. In it, candidates from many parties will run.

To qualify for a position on the ballot, a candidate must gather the signatures of 500 elected representatives in at least 30 (of 95) different French departments. This doesn’t seem to be a great obstacle. In the 2007 election, there were 11 candidates in the first round. The nine representing parties other than the two main parties won 43% of the first round votes. In 2002, there were 16 parties in the first round and the 14 smaller parties garnered over 63%.

In that year, the candidate of the far-right Front Nationale (FN), Jean Marie Le Pen, made it into the second round run off with only 17% of the first round vote, barely beating out the PS candidate. This was the result of the left vote being split among seven different parties, with parties to the left of the PS receiving 21% of the first round vote.

Le Pen was crushed in the second round by the candidate of the center-rightist Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), Jacques Chirac, whose vote went from 19% in the first round to 82% in the second, as the entire left was forced to support him in order to avoid the election of a neo-fascist.

The French presidential election would have only one round if someone got over 50% in the first round, but no one has ever come close to doing that. Close to half the electorate identifies with parties other than the two main ones of the center-left and center-right.

The 2012 second round run off takes place on May 6th. The normal and expected result is that the center-right UMP and the center-left PS will get the most votes in the first round and make it into a runoff. That has been the result every election except in 2002. Given voter fear that 2002 might happen again, there is a very strong likelihood that in 2012 the PS and UMP will face off again in the run off.

For many months, polls have shown the current French president, Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP, with high disapproval ratings, though the most recent polls have showed that his political fortunes have somewhat improved. From a low in April of 20%, Sakozy’s most recent approval ratings have risen to 35%. He has benefited from the demise of Dominique Strauss-Kahn (usually known as DSK) as a candidate due to his arrest in New York and the lack of another PS contender of equal stature.

Far right candidate Marine Le Pen. Photo by Ernest Morales / The Perspectivist.

Sarkozy has also benefited at the expense of Marine Le Pen, who experienced a bubble of popularity when she took over the FN from her father, a bubble that has since receded. Still, Sarkozy’s approval ratings are the lowest of any French president since the beginning of the Fifth Republic in 1958 and lower than when his party was hammered in the regional elections this past March. Even with his recent rise in the polls, Sarkozy’s approval ratings remain 13 and 19% behind his principal PS challengers.

Sakozy’s popularity problems are not a mystery. They derive from the dislike many have for his personality and the fact that his rightist positions are just not very popular with the French public. He is seen as wanting to Americanize France, not a popular notion.

In those recent regional elections, his UMP was beaten badly, maintaining control of just one of France's 22 regions, a major personal defeat for Sarkozy. Then in June his predecessor as president, the popular Jacques Chirac, also from the UMP, blasted Sarkozy in Chirac’s newly published memoirs as being “unFrench” and temperamentally unsuited to be president.

Sarkozy’s effort to raise the age at which one could begin receiving an old age retirement pension cost him politically. His banning the veil and deporting Roma were seen as efforts to win the anti-immigrant vote from the far right. He has been stained by allegations of political payoffs. His participation in the NATO alliance in Afghanistan is unpopular.

Typical of his missteps is his party’s position on gay marriage. They killed the most recent effort in the National Assembly to allow gay marriage despite polls that showed 63% of the French public supporting it. Their hard line opposition to reform of marijuana laws faces similar popular disapproval. With most of the French public wanting to reduce their dependency on nuclear energy after the disaster in Japan, Sarkozy increased the government’s investment in it.

Sarkozy's taking the lead in the attack on Qaddafi in Libya was popular at first, but was again seen as an effort to appeal to the far-right supporters of Le Pen and it didn’t substantially improve his low poll numbers. That is now turning sour as well.

Sarkozy won in 2007 over a weak PS candidate, Sègoléne Royal, but his politics don’t reflect those of the majority of French voters, 43% of whom think capitalism is “fundamentally flawed." Important members of his legislative coalition such as ex-Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin have abandoned him and threatened to run for president against him. Prominent centrists such as Francois Bayrou (Democratic Movement) and Jean-Louis Borloo (Radical Party) may also run against him.

Sarkozy will need lots of help to win. Without everything falling in his favor, the odds are that the next president of France will be from the Parti Socialiste.

The big question is who will be the Parti Socialiste nominee. Six candidates have entered the PS primary to be held in two rounds a week apart in October. Polls show Francois Hollande or Martine Aubry practically tied for the lead and far in front of the other four candidates. Hollande has been campaigning since March and has a slight lead.

Aubry had an agreement with DSK not to run against him. She didn’t enter the race until June when it became apparent DSK was out. She has closed the gap and now is running a close second to Hollande. Hollande was the leader of the Socialist Party from 1997 to 2008. Aubry has been the leader since 2008. There is not a great deal of political difference between them. Although Aubry is considered somewhat to Hollande’s left, both are within the mainstream of the PS.

Until his May 5 arrest in New York, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was the prohibitive favorite to be the next president, running as the nominee of the Parti Socialiste. A late April poll showed him 22% ahead of Sarkozy in a run off. The same poll showed Holland beating Sarkozy by 12% and Aubry beating him by 10%.

DSK will likely have the charges against him in New York dropped or reduced, but other accusations of sexual misconduct await him in France. He cannot return to the presidential race as a candidate in the PS primary, because the deadline to enter it has passed. Although he could still run as an independent if his legal troubles end soon, a big majority of the French public no longer wants him as a candidate.

Actually, it is a blessing that DSK is out of the race, great for the Parti Socialiste and for France. DSK is hardly a socialist. He is credited by economist Joseph Stiglitz with having made important reforms at the IMF, but that accolade has proven controversial on the left. However, it is beyond question that DSK headed an institution designed to facilitate the smooth functioning of international capitalism.

His opulent life style and proclivity to hang out with the elite of the international capitalist ruling class showed little evidence that he had much connection with the desires and needs of mere workers. Besides that, he is by far the strongest supporter of Israel among the PS leadership. The PS favored him because he looked like a sure winner. Now they have a renewed opportunity to nominate an actual socialist.

Francois Hollande is the leading candidate for the PS nomination. Besides being First Secretary of the Socialist Party for over 10 years, he is best known for being the partner of Sègoléne Royal, the PS’s losing candidate for president in 2007. Although never married, Hollande and Royal were together for 28 years and have four children.

Royal threw him out just after her 2007 election loss when his affair during the campaign with a French journalist was revealed. Typically, this private peccadillo has been shrugged off by the electorate, but after the DSK affair, the private life of candidates is increasingly seen as worthy of public scrutiny in France.

Sègoléne Royal was seen as a caviar-socialist and lightweight. She lost to Sarkozy by 6%. Then in 2008 she narrowly lost the race for First Secretary of the PS to Aubry. Royal is now running a distant third among candidates for the 2012 PS nomination.

Despite the loss of their majority in the National Assembly by the “plural left” (the PS and its leftwing allies) in 2002 while Hollande was its leader, he was reelected First Secretary of the PS in 2003 “against the leftwing of the party." In 2005, Hollande advocated PS support for the adoption of the European Constitution in the French referendum. The left of the PS and the Communists opposed the constitution on the basis that it primarily supported capitalist interests.

In a great victory for the left, the vote to endorse the constitution failed in France and that spelled its doom. The fight over the EU Constitution split the PS and sent the party into disarray. Hollande was on the right in that split.

Socialist candidate Francois Hollande. Image from Atlas Forum.

Hollande is seen as lacking charisma, but he seems to relish that characterization. He has promised to be a “normal” president after the upheavals and controversies that have characterized the Sarkozy government. Some of his support stems from his ability to lose over 10 kilograms of weight in preparation to run for president. He seems to promise stability, respectability and minimal change, but with mildly socialist PS leadership.

He narrowly leads in polls among probable participants in the PS primary and among the general public, but he’s been campaigning three months longer than Aubry. Hollande now faces charges that he helped cover up previous sexual transgressions by DSK while First Secretary of the PS. He identifies himself as a practicing Roman Catholic although PS orthodoxy has long favored secularism. It is fair to say that he represents the right wing of the PS, a party whose dedication to socialism has been widely questioned.

Martine Aubry has an impeccable Parti Socialiste pedigree. She is the current First Secretary of the party and the mayor of the northern industrial city of Lille. She was a Minister in two previous PS governments: Minister of Labor from 1991 to 1993 and of Social Affairs from 1997 to 2000.

She is best known as the author of the controversial measure reducing the workweek from 39 to 35 hours. She also introduced a universal healthcare provision that gave full coverage to the poorest families. In 1986, she founded the anti-racist Act Against Exclusion Foundation. She has been mayor of Lille since 2001 and won the 2008 mayoral election with 67% of the vote. She is described as tough and demanding. She responds that “I am up-front and not a hypocrite. I am much less hard than many politicians. I may even be too sensitive.”

Aubry is the best hope of the left. Her election would more likely lead to greater changes in France and in the European Union than if Hollande wins. In addition, Aubry’s victory would be a historic triumph for feminism in France. Aubry’s record on gender equality is unassailable. But many of my left-leaning Paris friends, female and male, referred to her disparagingly as a “bulldog” whom they can’t stand.

This points to two unfortunate problems for her candidacy. First, she will have to overcome the sexism reflected in such remarks. Second, she is not glamorous and chic. Like Sarkozy, her personality is not especially winning. Many French prefer their president to exhibit those personal qualities, regardless of their politics. She probably wouldn’t win a “beauty contest” election, but her image advisors are trying to soften her edges. She is identified as a lapsed Roman Catholic although her father famously broke the barrier against a practicing Roman Catholic being a leader of the PS.

Jacques Delors, Aubry’s father, is a Parti Socialiste icon who was the Finance Minister under Francois Mitterrand (1981-85) and President of the European Commission (1985 – 95). As Finance Minister, he advocated a pause in the extension of the welfare state and the acceptance of the market economy.

He was expected to be the PS presidential candidate in 1994, but turned it down “due to the radicalization of the party which prevented his centrist strategy." His daughter is considered to be closer to the left wing of the party. That will likely help her in the Socialist Party primary and, if she wins that, in the first round of the presidential election. Delors is supporting his daughter’s candidacy, as is Paris’ popular gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe.

It was under Aubry’s leadership that the PS changed the rules for its primary election. Historically, only card-carrying members of the party voted to choose their presidential candidate. Now, any French citizen with “sympathies for the left” is entitled to vote in their primary. This will be the case for the first time this year and although what effect it will have is unclear, it is expected to help the left. Polls show that as many as a third of the general public might participate in the PS primary.

Although Hollande polls slightly ahead of Aubry at this time, with six candidates in the race, he doesn’t have enough support to win the PS primary without a runoff. Aubry’s campaign is newer and may not have reached its potential. She may benefit from a growing feminist backlash against the sexism in French politics in the wake of the DSK scandal. As such, she would become the vehicle for the aspirations of French feminists. She would be the first woman to be president of France.

The uncertainties related to the new format of the PS primary -- and who among the first round losers would endorse whom in the runoff -- provide enough variables to make the likely PS nominee unclear. But it will either be Francois Hollande or Martine Aubry. Sègoléne Royal is running a distant third and is probably out of serious contention. Given her personal history with Hollande, it will be fascinating to hear her second round endorsement.

Hollande and Aubry are graduates of both the prestigious Ecole National de Administration and the Paris Institute of Political Studies. Having attended these schools has been considered virtually a requirement for holding high public office in France. Two-thirds of the CEO’s of major French corporations are graduates of the ENA.

Aubry has been a professor at the ENA and, unlike Hollande, has numerous publications to her credit. Titles of publications she has written include “A Guide for Struggle Against the Extreme Right” (1995), “What is Solidarity?” (2002), “Culture Always and More Than Ever” (2004), “A Vision for Hope, A Will to Transform” (2004), and “Take Action Against Discrimination.” (2006). There is some prejudice against “ENAques” as an elite who have long dominated both French politics and business. Sarkozy is not an “enaque."

There is a possibility that Marine Le Pen, candidate of the far right Front Nationale (FN), will make the presidential runoff in 2012. She could edge out the PS candidate as her father did in 2002, but it is more likely she would eliminate Sarkozy in the first round. If so, she will lose badly to whoever opposes her in the run off, just as her father did in 2002.

It is the dream of both Sarkozy and the PS nominee, that Le Pen will make the runoff and eliminate their more centrist opponent. There is some possibility of that happening. Polls earlier this year showed Le Pen’s popularity rising, but it has since declined. She has distanced herself from some of her father’s more disreputable positions (e.g., anti-Semitism) and endorsed a more “populist” agenda that conforms in some respects to that of the far left.

Still, the FN cannot win and probably cannot get over 30% of the vote in any runoff regardless of who is the opposition. Given the experience of 2002, which few would want to repeat, the left is more likely to support the PS candidate rather than voting for one of the smaller, further left parties in the first round. And the right is more likely to support Sarkozy of the UMP in the first round rather voting for the FN.

For what it’s worth, the newly adopted platform of the PS emphasizes economic development, aid to small businesses and to youth. High on its list of initiatives is the creation of a public investment bank to help small and medium sized businesses. The PS wants to lower taxes for businesses that reinvest profits and raise taxes on those that pay out profits in dividends to stockholders. They also propose to create 30,000 new jobs for youths in green industries and social services.

If he isn't in jail, Dominique Strauss-Kaun could be Finance Minister. Photo by Richard Drew / AFP / Getty Images.

Their other proposals include higher import duties on products coming from countries that do not respect international social, sanitary, and environmental norms; lower taxes on non-polluting products; allowing gay marriage and adoptions; a reduction of reliance on nuclear energy; and reestablishing the minimum retirement age at 60.

If the PS candidate is likely to be the next president, regardless of who that candidate is, what might we expect from that candidate as president? There are a couple of major variables. Will the winning PS candidate be Hollande or Aubry? The consensus is that she is to his left, although they have had some difficulty articulating their differences in the campaign so far. My reading is that the differences between them could be significant.

Another major variable in play is whether there will be a PS or “plural left” majority in the National Assembly or will there be another round of “cohabitation”? With “cohabitation” you have the presidency in the hands of one party and the legislature in the hands of another, a divided government where little gets accomplished. Right now the UMP has a large majority in the legislature, but it did poorly in recent regional elections. The PS is expected to make advances, but will it be enough to take control of the legislature? No one knows.

Regardless, the hypothetical PS president would at least slow Sarkozy’s privatizations and blunt attacks on the reforms and benefit programs won by past left-led governments. But don’t expect the burst of nationalizations and other more radical measures that characterized the beginning of the last PS presidency, Francois Mitterrand in 1981, even if the PS wins the presidency and control of the National Assembly. In general, a new PS president would protect and refine benefits and socialist programs that already exist, such as the world’s best health care system, instead of presenting broad new initiatives.

What could a PS presidency mean in a EU context? If the PS is able to form a governing majority in the legislature, they will name the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet. In that case the key figure could be DSK, a strong candidate to be the future Finance Minister regardless of which PS candidate wins, provided he’s not in jail.

In the ongoing Euro debt crisis, onerous austerity measures, privatizations, and cuts in government spending have been forced upon Greece and others, typical of the pre-DSK approach at the IMF, an approach now widely rejected by potential recipient countries. DSK would be expected to reorient France’s approach to the Euro debt crisis in a manner similar to the changes he made at the IMF.

In praising DSK’s tenure there, liberal Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently characterized those changes as “the link the IMF has finally drawn between inequality and instability”. Stiglitz goes on to quote DSK’s speech to the Brookings Institute earlier this year where DSK concluded, “Ultimately, employment and equity are the building blocks of economic stability and prosperity, of political stability and peace... It must be at the heart of our agenda.”

The election of a PS president in France is not the revolution. Besides, France has had four revolutions since we had ours. It’s our turn. But as the conservative Jacques Chirac demonstrated at the beginning of the Iraq War, it is sometimes helpful to have nominal friends in high places -- like the Èlysée Palace.

[David P. Hamilton has been a political activist in Austin since the late 1960s when he worked with SDS and wrote for The Rag, Austin's underground newspaper. Read more articles by David P. Hamilton on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

23 May 2011

David P. Hamilton : 'Le Perv,' 'Le Perp,' and Justice in America

Le perv and les tabs.

Letters from France II:
Le perv, le perp, and justice in America


By David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog / May 23, 2011

[This is the second in a series of dispatches from France by The Rag Blog's David P. Hamilton.]

PARIS -- When I planned to write a series of articles from France, discussing the justice system was not on my list of topics. But given that the scandal involving Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on every front page, it’s unavoidable.

In anticipation of critical reaction, allow me preface my comments by saying that I regard rape as prima facie evidence of misogyny and thus a hate crime deserving enhancement of already justly severe punishment. Furthermore, despite my favorite economist, Joseph Stiglitz, writing recently in praise of Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s leadership of the IMF, DSK was hardly my favorite candidate to become the next president of France.

He represents the right wing of the Socialist Party and in a partisan political sense, I’m glad he’s gone. In addition, if I were forced to bet on DSK’s actual guilt or innocence, I would have to put my money on the former.

It must also be said that France is hardly a paragon of virtue when it comes to the issue of women’s rights. French women were only granted the vote in 1945. As reported in The Guardian (London),
Simon Jackson, an English historian at Sciences Po, the elite political studies institute in Paris, shares the view that, in France, male attitudes to sex lag behind Britain in terms of equality. "I think that's in large part the product of serious and continuing deficits in the opportunities women enjoy professionally, educationally and socially in France, which is one of the least gender-equal countries in the EU."
In a gender pay gap survey released recently at Davos, France came in 46th.

Nonetheless, I believe that DSK’s right to a fair trial has been irreparably violated by actions on the part of the NYC police, prosecution, and media. Hence, his case should be dismissed and he should sue every media outlet that contributed to his pretrial humiliation, particularly the New York's Daily News and Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post.

It is simply preposterous to argue that parading a disheveled DSK in handcuffs surrounded by a phalanx of police in front of hordes of photographers did not compromise his prior presumption of innocence. This is not only true in relation to DSK, but also in the case of anyone else abused by this unnecessary practice.

In France, such police behavior is quite specifically illegal. The Daily News plastered the DSK's photo on its cover with the caption “Le Perv," as in pervert. It cannot be argued reasonably that the potential jury pool in NYC was not thereby tainted.

Such behavior on the part of the police in France or the UK would result in the dismissal of the case on the basis of police misconduct and the resulting libel suits would likely never go to court because they would be such an obvious two-handed slam dunk for the plaintive.

In this, the Europeans are quite correct and the U.S. justice system is again revealed as fundamentally flawed.

This flaw is so obvious to Europeans that the French woman who has come forth since the incident in New York with allegations that DSK assaulted her during an interview eight years ago, now says, through her lawyer, that she does not “want to be manipulated by the American justice system, or help out in any way so that these two cases might be linked.”

The woman IMF employee with whom DSK had an affair while head of the IMF has said she felt pressured to sleep with him. This is the case in any situation where a boss hits on an employee. It may or may not have included physical force, although she did describe him as “a rutting chimpanzee."

DSK was reprimanded and publicly apologized, but was allowed to continue as leader of the IMF without further consequences. Reprehensible as that is, no legal system regards such pressure as rape unless violence or threats thereof were involved. It is certain that she is now under pressure again, this time to testify against him. If she is willing to testify and indicates force was involved, and if the judge allows that testimony in court, DSK is very likely going to prison for the rest of his life.

As a result of his purposeful public humiliation and the resulting pretrial publicity, DSK will eventually get a change of venue if he wants it. But given the magnitude of this case and the fact that it has now been on the cover of every newspaper in the world, that solution, itself a compromise of justice, will not suffice to rectify the abuse of his right to the presumption of innocence or the consequences he will have suffered otherwise.

By the time that happens and he gets a trial, his opportunity to run for president will be a distant memory. He must declare his candidacy within a month and the Socialist Party nomination will be determined in November. The first stage of his trial is not until September. He has already been forced to resign from the IMF. The loss of his powerful job, his reputation and the near certainty he would be the next president of France has already been accomplished and cannot be seen as insignificant punishment, regardless of the trial’s outcome.

The perp walk. Photo from AP / Getty Images.

Given the defect in American jurisprudence that allows the pre-trial exposure to public humiliation of the accused, it is hardly surprising that France is not willing to sign an extradition treaty with the U.S. The recent Supreme Court decision allowing police to stage home invasions if they merely smell marijuana present only adds fuel to this perception of American justice being heavy handed if not brutal.

With the highest rate of incarceration in the world -- mostly poor nonviolent drug offenders without access to good legal representation -- the evidence of the U.S. system’s innate injustices is, in fact, ubiquitous.

The principal inherent fallacy in the U.S. legal system is that justice is a commodity. You can get it if you can pay for it. Ironically, this helps DSK because he has the money required. Without other women stepping forth to substantiate the accusations, the case becomes “he said vs. she said."

The defense lawyers will endeavor to bar the testimony of other women who might step forward with similar allegations against him. With his high paid lawyers, he will likely be able to influence the jury selection in such a way as to find at least one juror who will doubt the case against him.

But why would anyone but sexists doubt DSK’s guilt besides the fact there has been no trial -- except in the media, which has already given its guilty verdict despite not having access to the evidence? One possible answer is that polls have consistently shown DSK to be the strongest Socialist Party candidate in the field to defeat Nicolas Sarkozy in next year’s French presidential election. The most recent poll (April 20, 2011) showed DSK beating Sarkozy by 61-39 in the second round run off, a better showing than any other potential Socialist Party candidate.

One of Sarkozy’s aides came out shortly after the arrest saying that there had been previous similar incidents with DSK at that same luxury French-owned NYC hotel, but that the management had covered them up. One might wonder why very wealthy French hotel owners would protect the leading socialist candidate for president who was the clear favorite to displace the right-wing Sarkozy who has promised to Americanize the French economy.

Given DSK’s reputation as a womanizer and the fact that he would soon have to declare his candidacy, the possibility of a “set up” becomes plausible, however remotely, leading one to suspect there might be more here than meets the eye. A poll of 1007 French adults just found that 57% believe that a set-up was either certain or probable.

The other potential conspiracy stems from his attempts to supplant the dollar as the international reserve currency. Others who have advocated a similar goal have included Saddam Hussein and Mouammar Kadhafi. Given its past history of “black ops” it would be naïve to dismiss these kind of activities on the part of the U.S. government out of hand.

It is certain that the U.S. government would find a socialist president of France at least inconvenient. This is not to say these conspiracy allegations have any merit, but they provide a foundation for “reasonable doubt” in the mind of jurors and we are likely to hear more about them from his defense attorneys.

I am actually a big fan of “perp walks," but only for those who have been convicted in a fair trial. Here, that is anything but the case. In the U.S., the media rushes willy-nilly to convict. It sells newspapers and improves the profit margin, the paramount consideration in a capitalist dominated culture.

There are other potential issues here. DSK's defenders are being accused of blaming the victim. (Katha Pollitt in The Nation.) But in most press accounts and statements by his defenders, the victim has largely been ignored, that being facilitated by her disappearance. She is no longer on the job or even at home. Were I DSK’s defense lawyer, I would be curious to know who she is talking to besides her family, the police, and the prosecutor.

Then there is the issue of personal matters, such as infidelity, being illegitimate topics in public discussions of politicians. In the U.S., this is not the case. In France, a politician's private life is usually off-limits. This is a “middle path” issue. Perhaps the U.S. becomes too focused on such private behavior and the French are too protective of their elite.

The principal legal issue remains the maintenance of the accused’s pre-trial presumption of innocence. That is the cornerstone of any reputable system of justice. The U.S. system gives it lip service and then routinely violates the principle. The EU is much more serious about it. Perp walks of those accused of crimes and other similar practices are unnecessary violations of fundamental rights and they should be banned.

[David P. Hamilton has been a political activist in Austin since the late 1960s when he worked with SDS and wrote for The Rag, Austin's underground newspaper. Read more articles by David P. Hamilton on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.