“Lots of hours that were not seriously replaced.” This is how the new Minister of Education, Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, justified straight in the eyes the departure of her son from the Littré public school, in the 6th arrondissement of Paris, towards the private Catholic institution Stanislas , located in the same neighborhood. This intervention could have gone almost unnoticed. Before her, former minister Pap Ndiaye had also been questioned, after his arrival in government in 2022, about the schooling of his children at the very chic Alsatian School, also in the 6th arrondissement of Paris. His response – “the conditions for a serene and happy schooling were no longer met [dans le public]” – had certainly not prevented the “elitism” trials. It had, however, the merit of containing the controversy to its initial object without opening another front: that of suspicion of lying.
A few days after its release, the former teacher of the son of Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, interviewed by Release, weakened its defense. According to the daily, the minister’s choice would have been motivated more by the wish to make the eldest of the siblings skip a class, which the public establishment in which he ultimately only stayed for six months would have refused. Media outcry. The opposition denounces it as a “lie”, with some political figures even calling on the minister to resign. Despite the official denial and support from Emmanuel Macron during his speech on Tuesday January 16, many Internet users also seem to have decided the minister’s case: “a liar”, we can read on X.
“Right in the eyes”
Do all political lies (even presumed ones) cause such an uproar? Anyone who has ever opened a dictionary of quotes to the “politics” page undoubtedly knows the share of criticism that the function arouses. “Political discourse is designed to give lies the accent of truth,” joked George Orwell. “In politics, we only condemn yesterday’s lies to flatter tomorrow’s lies,” wrote Jean Rostand.
“How is it that, in our eyes, the image of a politician is much more negative than, for example, that of an advertiser? How can we explain that of the two professions which lie to us profusely, only that of politician is so violently rejected? asks political scientist Thomas Guénolé in his work A brief guide to lying in politics (Plural). The answer is simple: unlike the politician, the advertiser has never looked us straight in the eye, asking us for our trust and then betraying it.”
In France, the “straight in the eye” version of lying has already cost some politicians dearly. It was 2012 when Mediapart published a series of articles revealing that Jérôme Cahuzac allegedly had a bank account in Switzerland for the purposes of tax evasion until 2010, before transferring the funds to Singapore, prior to his arrival as president of the finance committee of the National Assembly. “I have never had an account in Switzerland or elsewhere abroad. Never,” defends the man who has, in the meantime, become Minister of the Budget, in a press release. Version that he will repeat in the media, on Twitter, and even in the hemicycle. In April 2013, however, the minister finally admitted having lied to the highest state authorities. He resigns.
“Despite love”
Of course, the Cahuzac case has nothing to compare with the criticisms made against the Minister of Education. One committed fraud and was punished by the courts for it, the other is accused of having distorted reality. The fact remains that, in both cases, if the “lie” trial was so violent, it is in particular because of the perceived dissonance between words and actions (presumed, in the case of the minister). Regarding Jérôme Cahuzac, many media outlets were quick to point out the irony – and in a sense, the double fault – in the fact that the “fraudster” was, as Minister of the Budget, responsible for tracking down tax fraud. . Likewise, a Minister of Education pinned on a question… of education, and ready to throw the name of a public school out into public opinion, that looks bad.
In his work, Thomas Guénolé recalled that “we feel towards our elected officials something of the order of amorous spite. Indeed, with the exception of our own spouses, children and friends, we demand more from our elected officials than from any other person”.
Especially, it seems, if the politician in question is from the left, a political side enjoying – in theory at least – a presumption of moral probity greater than the right. When the former socialist Minister of the Interior, Bruno Le Roux, was accused in 2017 of having employed his two daughters as parliamentary collaborators, pushing him to resign, the scandal was all the more violent as the Political specialists were quick to point out (as in the Cahuzac affair) the deleterious consequences for the image of the Hollande five-year term, and for the left as a whole.
Popularity
Should we see, conversely, in the second life of certain other politicians, despite being accused of having lied, a “right-wing” privilege? Not if we judge by the Fillon affair, where the factor of political color, given the presidential ambitions of the accused and the seriousness of the alleged facts, seemed on the contrary to exacerbate the criticism.
The fact remains that the former Levallois councilors, Patrick and Isabelle Balkany, have certainly been ostracized by the political class and condemned in court for laundering tax fraud – the latter having pointed out a “permanence in lying”, the fact remains that the latter are today real stars of social networks and that Isabelle Balkany now enjoys a nickname: “the terror of 92”.
More than political color, popularity also plays a role. Who has never met a Bernard Tapie “fan”? However, he admitted, in a phrase that has become cult, to having lied but “in good faith” during the VA-OM trial. Likewise, at the time of Patrick Balkany’s indictment, several Levallois residents had even created an association to pay his bail. Is a satisfied people a people ready to turn a blind eye to the wanderings of their elected representatives? Or maybe it would be a question of affect. We remember François Mitterrand, whose lies about wiretapping the Élysée, his double life and his illness hit the headlines. Benevolent nostalgia or French romanticism, the traditional Ifop barometers confirm its tenacious popularity year after year.
Prove Intent
In On the lie, Saint Augustine described it as stating something false with the “intent” to deceive. Perhaps this is the determining factor which has earned some a short-lived controversy, rather than a serious scandal. Above all, if, as recommended by the author of The Art of Political Lying (a text attributed to Jonathan Swift) his lies were shielded “from all possible verification”. Some may remember the singular controversy that targeted Laurent Wauquiez in 2008. At the time of Sister Emmanuelle’s death, the latter assured that he had met her “about ten times”, which those close to the nun had contradicted. This is how it is in politics: version versus facts, lies can be costly; version of some against version of others, ambiguity protects.
.