In a period marked by the Pandemic of COVID-19, the role of justice in the management of the health crisis has become a burning subject in France. Gérard Davet, investigative journalist, looked at this theme in his latest book co -written with Fabrice Lhomme. In a recent intervention on France 24, he said: “It seems to us to be able to conclude that justice has done its job.” This sentence sums up a dense investigation into state responsibilities in times of crisis, but it also raises questions about the very nature of this justice and its effectiveness in reality.
### Tension justice
The French legal framework, with regard to ministers, is based on the Court of Justice of the Republic. This institution, founded in 1993, is the only one empowered to judge acts committed by government members in the exercise of their functions. During crises such as that of COVID-19, the question of government responsibility becomes crucial. If justice has been described as having done its duty, the tangible results remain to be discussed. Make informed decisions in the midst of a crisis requires, on the part of managers, clear and precise information, but also a good dose of anticipation – an art that the pandemic has tested.
### Thinking about responsibility
The investigation carried out by Davet and Lhomme is part of a context where the responsibility of the authorities is challenged by the citizen. While tragic events have been linked, in particular the saturation of hospitals or the lack of medical equipment at the start of the crisis, the question emerged: were the decisions taken by the government justified? Justice therefore has a role to play not only in establishing the guilt or the innocence of actions, but also to provide a form of catharsis to a proven population.
A striking statistic to mention is that, according to polls during the pandemic, more than 60% of French people declared to lose confidence in the institutions during the crisis. This climate of distrust could explain the craze around the judicial inquiries that followed. Citizens are not only waiting for accounts, but a dignity found through clear answers, which complicates the mission of justice.
### A plea for prevention
The Book of Davet and Lhomme has a double analysis: on the one hand, the work of justice in the strict framework of the law and, on the other hand, an implicit criticism of crisis management by the State. But can we really dissociate justice and prevention? The authors argue, with reason, for an anticipation of crises, which includes not only a legal framework, but also skills in crisis management and strong public communication.
Indeed, justice, especially in complex contexts like this, must evolve. A proactive vision should be adopted, dismissing the idea that errors of judgment during critical moments must systematically lead to prosecution. The education of public officials in crisis management could become a priority, thus receiving justice not only as an instrument of sanction, but also as a catalyst for change.
### to a new paradigm
The debate that takes shape around the conclusions brought by the justice is vast. The COVVI-19 crisis highlighted not only the ability to adapt judicial systems, but also the ethical issues that surround it. Decisions judged today may have long -term impacts on the legal framework and the perception of public authority.
Thus, while Davet concludes that “justice has done its job”, the real questioning perhaps lies in the very conception of what justice should be in the face of a global health crisis. To go beyond a simple observation, it seems crucial to discuss the reforms to be considered to ensure justice which not only responds to crises, but also builds long-term confidence, essential to the proper functioning of society.
This reflection leads us to consider a future where the judicial system would not only be a reaction to past crises, but a preventive player in the management of future crises. In an increasingly interconnected and vulnerable world, this could be the key to restoring a bond of trust between the State and its citizens, prepared together to face the unforeseen events.