What do you think about the choice of the High Authority for the transparency of political life to make public declarations of interests and activities of parliamentarians?
This setting transparency seems to me essential for two reasons: because the opacity reduces the doubt, and because drift have been identified in recent years. What to see is that there are two aspects in the approach of the High Authority for the transparency of public life. There is the nature of activities and the amount of money involved.
On the first point, we in the opposition denounced the practices of Jean-Francois Cope, president of a group in the National Assembly and lawyer in a large law firm in which he had, without pleading, certain activities. There are functions that are incompatible with being a parliamentarian: communication consultant or lawyer (in some areas anyway) are not compatible. However, a Deputy or Senator teaches constitutional law, it does not have any problem.
there are clarifications to uncover the employees, some of whom are active in the field of lobbying.
What can be the consequences of the publication of the statement of interest, beyond their excavation?
First, we must use them responsibly. The publication can cause self-and allow some lawmakers to return to the nails. And it may lead also to push reforms further than they have been conducted so far, stating in the law incompatibilities. I think this transparency allows clarification of roles and can lead politically, morally, to uncover clear incompatibilities. If this had been done earlier, we might be able to learn things on the activities of Jerome Cahuzac …
Collected by Valérie Mazerolle
Post a Comment