(CU)_Investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating former presidents and prime ministers is currently trending worldwide. For instance, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to prison for corruption earlier last month, and South Africa’s former president Jacob Zuma will be facing trial in May. Israel’s sitting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also currently on trial, while New York prosecutors are investigating business dealings of former President Donald Trump.
At a first glance, it seems like an obvious decision for democracy to prosecute current or former leaders for illegal conduct, since nobody is above the law and everyone should be held accountable.
However, these decisions may have certain repercussions, since presidents and prime ministers aren’t just anyone, they are leaders chosen by the citizens of the nation.
In 1974, despite clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing by former President Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal, his successor President Gerald Ford pardoned him, as he feared that if the people were to remain sharply divided over punishing an ex-president, this would lead to a needless diversion from meeting the real challenges.
Although there were mixed views over President Ford’s decision at the time, however, people now see that absolving President Nixon was necessary to heal the US. The reason for this is that if the prosecution against a top leader is brought by a political rival, this can lead to a cycle of retaliatory prosecutions.
Overzealous prosecution could be particularly more damaging in emerging democracies where the judiciary is not sufficiently independent from politics, since this makes it easier for politicians to use the system to either take down an opponent or expand their own power.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former President of Brazil, who was a shoeshine boy before turning into a popular leftist, was convicted in 2018 for accepting bribes, although many Brazilians believe it was part of an effort to end his political career.
A year later, the same team of prosecutors had former President Michel Temer arrested for the same crime, but his trial was later suspended.
The cases against both these leaders were considered to be a part of a years-long sweeping anti-corruption probe by the courts, as the lead prosecutor of the inquiry himself is accused of corruption.
Nevertheless, it could be said that certain strong democracies are in fact competent enough to go after top leaders who misbehave. For example, in France, President Sarkozy was the second modern president to be found guilty of corruption after President Jacques Chirac. It has become evident that the country did not fall apart after Chirac’s conviction.
Yet, some believe that the three-year prison sentence given to Sarkozy, who was accused of bribery and an attempt to pay-off a magistrate, was too harsh.
South Africa, on the other, has taken a different approach, particularly during the times of segregation and human rights abuses, using the prosecution of top leaders as a bargaining chip. The African National Congress, led by Nelson Mandela, negotiated with the country’s white-dominated government to ensure they would not be prosecuted and be allowed to keep their wealth. Although this approach helped the country’s transition to a majority Black rule while avoiding a civil war, however, it weakened the efforts to create a more equal South Africa, as the country still has one of the world’s highest racial wealth gaps.
Meanwhile, Israel did not wait for its Prime Minister to leave office to investigate his wrongdoing. In 2019, PM Netanyahu was indicted for bribery, fraud and breaches of trust. Although the efforts to delay his trial and resist what he calls a “witch hunt” were proven to be unsuccessful, nevertheless, he was re-elected while under indictment.
Therefore, all these countries are partly a testament to the rule of law, and partly a cautionary tale, as it is evident that prosecuting a former state leader may not always be great for democracy.
