In November 1923, Nazi party leader Adolf Hitler attempted to seize power by force. The “Beer Hall Putsch” was not as silly as its name suggests. There, the Nazis held Bavaria’s prime minister, ministers and the heads of the local army and police hostage. The plan called for a “March to Berlin” after seizing power in the state, inspired by Benito Mussolini’s successful March on Rome. Ultimately, the coup was suppressed and Hitler was put on trial, along with the other plotters.
Many historians claim that the history of Germany and the entire world would have been different if the court that tried the leader of the National Socialist Party had not been so lenient. While the crime of high treason, for which he was accused, could have even brought the death penalty, the court imposed the minimum sentence of five years in prison, which ultimately became eight months plus a fine of 500 marks.
However, based on some of the theories going around today with regard to the conviction of France’s far-right National Rally (RN) leader Marine Le Pen for helping to embezzle more than 4 million euros of European Union funds, Hitler should not have been tried and everything should have been decided at the ballot box. Not to mention the fact that his few months in prison not only made him a hero, but also gave him time to write “Mein Kampf.” It should be noted that both Hitler and Le Pen broke the law driven by political reasons. One says that she was financing her party, while the other had claimed that he had wanted to… save Germany.
Le Pen is no Hitler, of course, but let’s not forget that, in 1923, Hitler was not Hitler either. He was simply a party leader who broke the law. Nor were the offenses the same. The question we must ask is whether judicial decisions can be weighed according to what happened or what we predict may happen. Furthermore, what do we do with politicians who have popular appeal but break the law? Do elections function as a kind of “popular court,” which can determine that a good performance in the polls outweighs any political and criminal liability?
The issue is complicated by the fact that those who complain the most about “judicial crime in France” are usually the far-right “anti-system” voters, those who shout the most about the impunity of (our) ministers, about the political system that covers up injustices. They are probably “anti-system” with every system: both the one where there is judicial independence and with the other where the judicial leadership is appointed by the government. Riddle me that.