The Limits of Democracy

2025-06-28 17:46:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

In December 2011, former President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac, was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended. After two terms and twelve years as president.

The court convicted him after a 1998 lawsuit by a simple printing press employee. In the case of a "fictitious employment" in the Paris municipality where Chirac was mayor from 1977 to 1995.

In short, he was convicted of fictitious employment of various employees in the Paris municipality (where he was mayor), who in reality worked for the party (which elected him president of France). Simple as that.

In December 2024, former French Prime Minister François Fillon was finally sentenced to four years in prison, a fine of 375,000 euros, and a ban from running for office for a decade.

This time the "virtual employment" involved his wife, who was paid as his parliamentary assistant by the French Parliament. The affair was revealed in January 2017 and Fillon was forced to withdraw from the May 2017 presidential election, while leading convincingly in the polls.

In 2024, another former President of the Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, was also sentenced to three years in prison. The French judiciary accused him of corruption in the financing of his 2007 election campaign.

In 2025, it was Marine Le Pen's turn. She was convicted along with eight MEPs from her party of crimes of "fictitious employment and embezzlement", this time by the European Parliament.

Le Pen and her friends used the benefits offered by the European Parliament to MEPs to finance their party. In total, they were accused of embezzling around four million euros, of which around 490,000 were owed to Le Pen.

Is French Justice sold, bought, and in the service of a political force?

Absolutely not! To claim otherwise would be absurd!

But let's go back to Albania.

It is not in vain that I mentioned the above examples of France, one of the most democratic countries in Europe.

In Albania alone, in the last two or three years, we have had dozens of high-ranking officials, mayors, ministers, former ministers, MPs, former prime ministers and former presidents accused of high-level active and passive corruption, even behind bars.

Some of them thought they would raise supporters in the revolution and performed feats of bravery by hiding in the bathrooms of the headquarters, others thought they were Tarzans in the jungle and threatened with Tarzan feats. But in reality, Tarzanisms don't help, only if you are Tarzan. But, since there aren't many Tarzans in circulation, it's best to avoid Tarzanisms too...

Here I come to an issue that is increasingly raised in debates.

Does Democracy have limits? Of course it does!

The limits set by the legal order that Democracy itself has established.

And which has charged Justice with respecting and enforcing the boundaries set by law.

In other words, Democracy is not a vineyard without a master.

Anyone who wants to can engage in politics, fight, compete, run for office, or be elected, but within the boundaries of a legal order. That is, within the boundaries of Democracy.

Of course, these restrictions are not liked by those who violate them, the Albanian Tarzans.

Their problem...

Even when they have obvious consequences. There is no doubt that the sentence places a major obstacle to the political ambitions of Berisha, Meta, Veliaj, Ahmetaj or anyone else.

But not because we don't like their views, which would be really problematic from a democratic perspective. But because the court and the investigative and law enforcement bodies decided that they had violated the law by unjustly and suspiciously embezzling money that they had invested in politics.

And, of course, regardless of what they say in Albania or declare against Justice for "political decisions", it is not so.

A judicial decision is not political because it concerns politicians.

For the simple reason that politicians are controlled like the rest of us, even when the parliamentary system provides them with protection.

But let's get to the heart of the matter.

They have nothing to do with a politician's ability to claim or not a high political and state position.

They have nothing to do with the ideas or opinions of a particular candidate. It doesn't even matter if he's right-wing or socialist.

They do not concern the real or supposed relations of Justice with political power. These relations exist within the proper functioning of democratic institutions and are a different kind of discussion.

Things are about confirming that democracy has limits.

And these are the limits of the law she has imposed on herself.

Therefore, in order for Democracy to function properly, it must have clear ethical, legal, and institutional boundaries. Otherwise, it risks becoming a self-destructive system, where the unlimited freedom of the individual can turn into the tyranny of the majority or into social chaos.

When the boundaries of democracy are blurred, when freedom is used as an excuse to exclude, when the majority oppresses the minority, when institutions are ignored, when individuals in power deliberately violate Justice and Democracy, then the door opens to populism, authoritarianism and extreme polarization. Democracy is not a system that runs on its own; it requires constant care, civic education and a collective sense of responsibility.

Yes, Democracy has limits. And it is precisely these limits that protect it from internal collapse. Freedom, in its best sense, is not the absence of rules, but the existence of justice. Democracy is not a vineyard without a master; but a garden that needs careful caretakers to guard it from the weeds that grow when vigilance and conscience are lost.

Because ultimately, Democracy is an agreement, not only between citizens and the state, but also among citizens themselves to live together, with rights, with borders, with dignity.

And Democracy itself has always assigned to Justice the responsibility of overseeing the respect of borders and punishing their violation.