[en] A common observation can be made in a lot of contemporary democracies: this form of government gets worn down, which is affecting the concerns of the population about politicians. Meanwhile, public institutions are experiencing a decay of trust. In order to deal with this phenomenon, governments have introduced a body of “political ethics rules”. Indeed, there is a growing trend among citizens to define themselves more as individuals than as members of a community (party, trade union, etc.) and it results in an increased will to put under scrutiny the political and even personal behaviour of leaders. Moreover, in the collective psyche, transparency is associated with a democratic ideal. Civil society therefore demands that political representatives are above all reproach and make sure that public interest prevails over their private interests.
Political ethics have developed in the United States (and then in the United Kingdom) since the late 1960s and have gradually reached continental Europe since the beginning of the 21st century. It includes a body of rules that tend to reflect "good political morals" (prohibition on holding several public offices, limitation and publication of remuneration, etc.). These rules are supposed to prevent the strict application of the rules of political responsibility and criminal law.
At first sight, States’ constitutions could appear to be a privileged way for legally establishing these rules, which aim to restore political trust. This should however be further discussed. In most States, the rigidity of the constitution is difficult to combine with the evolving nature of political ethics. It must be noted that regulation is primarily embodied in legislative texts or in soft law. But, with that regard once again the issue of anticipating controversial behaviour has not completely been solved. Indeed, these norms cannot regulate all the situations that arise in reality. They often express an ad hoc response to previous political scandals. For a variety of reasons, they are also discussed in terms of their effectiveness (prevention as the preferred approach over repression, risk that the constraints on politicians are weak given that the makers of the rules are also those who are subject to them, etc.).
Our analysis on political ethics rules is structured as follows: we start by explaining the reasons for the emergence of this phenomenon and give some illustrations of legal and non-legal instruments that reflect these rules (I), then we offer to put this concept into perspective with the private lives of political leaders (II). Finally, we will question the effectiveness of this potential remedy to the decay of trust in parliament (III).
