Talk:List of former heads of democratic countries charged with crimes

	This Crime related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): The article doesn't go into specific details of any of the cases. Not all democracies are equal, and some of them have flawed institutions that result in purely politically motivated criminal investigations. The article right now doesn't have any of that nuance.

(create an archive)

Heads of governments

Unlike the USA, in Israel, Italy and Malaysia, the head of state and the head of government are two distinct functions. The prime ministers in these countries are heads of government, not heads of state. They should be either removed, or this page should be renamed in something like 'List of former heads of states and heads of governments in democratic countries, charged with crimes'. -- blobcat (°U°) 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The title is already overlong. How about "List of former heads of democratic countries charged with crimes"? Bongolian (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That is much better. -- blobcat (°U°) 01:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Peru

There are a few problems I have with this section; firstly, while Fujimori was democratically elected initially, he was a dictator for most of his reign. There are similar problems when we run into Castillo, as the reason he was impeached was essentially because of the Fujimori-era constitution, which is arguably undemocratic as it allows the Peruvian Congress to remove a democratically elected president at any time for basically no reason, which had happened multiple times in recent years. Many of the sections on Latin American countries have these issues, as most of them were until recently dictatorships and many of the political structures from the times are still in place, making them not as democratic as they seem. In general, covering those countries requires a level of nuance that you're not likely to see in western sources like the New York Times. Plutocow (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And I'm also wondering what the point of this article is. Obviously, it was made in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid and presumably wanted to show that charging Trump wouldn't be unprecedented and is actually a good thing for democracies to do. Problem is, the article goes a bit far in the other direction, and in imperfect democracies criminal investigations have been used to crush political opponents, which is common in Latin America. Since the article doesn't go into the specifics of any of these cases at all, it's hard to say what I'm supposed to take away from it. Plutocow (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you trying to whitewash Castillo again, Pluto? He's an homophobe prick. What he did was a coup attempt. That's why he was arrested. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

All of the names in Latam are guilty. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If it was a coup attempt, then so was Congress trying to impeach him three times for no reason. This isn't even a new problem, they did the same thing to center-right Martín Vizcarra. What Castillo did was stupid, largely because it would have only resulted in chaos, but calling it a coup attempt was reductive. Plutocow (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Two wrongs make a right. It was a coup, the media in Latin America called it a coup,[1][2] [3][4] unlike you I can read in Spanish. The difference between the impeachment attempts is that they were at least supported by the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution written by Fujimori is bad. But unlike what Castillo did, it wasn't illegal. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this article is it's about democratic countries and a constitution inherited from a dictatorship isn't exactly, you know, democratic, especially when democratically elected leaders can be overthrown for any reason by Congress. The rest of the discussion I'll continue on your talk page, since it's not relevant to the article. Plutocow (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not always true. The Italian Civil Code was written by the fascists and it's very influential worldwide (Polyhedral Theory, by Alberto Asquini), and the Argentine Constituion survived the most brutal right-wing dictatorship in Latam's history. In the Peruvian case, while there are indeed some problems, they are still regarded as a democracy by the EIU and the Freedom House. Impeaching Castillo showed the strenght of their institutions if you want my opinion. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In this case, however, the constitution essentially makes it so that democratically-elected leaders have no real power as Congress has pretty much unlimited impeachment power to keep them in line, be they leftists like Castillo or even rightists who aren't right enough like Vizcarra. But regardless of whether or not Peru counts as a democracy, my main problem (which I could've worded better) is the page essentially equates it with say, France or the US, when not every democracy is equally democratic and the article essentially lacks any real nuance on the matter. Plutocow (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If it was just a case of impeachment, I wouldn't have put Castillo there. Impeachment is generally regarded as a political rather than criminal process. There were pre-existing charges of corruption against Castillo to which Castillo was immune from prosecution until leaving office. Castillo overplayed his hand by threatening an autogolpe, and thus expedited his own prosecution. Bongolian (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

He definitely belongs here, he was democratically elected and he was charged with a crime. What is in contention here is how the article should treat him, though really, pretty much all the sections in the article need more detail. Fujimori definitely needed to be removed as I feel that including outright dictators here really muddles the purpose of this article. Plutocow (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. Bongolian (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thailand

@Bongolian Thailand is, according to the latest Democracy Index report, a flawed democracy, and they have, I believe, many former heads of democratic countries that were charged with crimes. You might want to take a look. I would do it myself, but I'm rather busy right now. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been allegations of corruption for several prime ministers, but the only one involving criminal charges appears to be Thaksin Shinawatra, who was convicted in 2008, but essentially escaped justice. Bongolian (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for making you waste your time. I was sure a few of them were charged. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Fujimori

Fujimori was a dictator. Why is he on the list? If you say he was democratically elected, so was Putin. Carthage (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's reasonable to remove Fujimori. The Democracy Index had not started when he was elected in 1990, and I can't find any citations for the fairness of that election. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Charged or convicted?

Might this be better as, "List of former heads of democratic countries convicted of crimes". Or possibly ""List of former heads of democratic countries subsequently convicted of crimes". Though the second is a bit long.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel.

Hello, it's everyone's most hatred RationalWiki editor back at it again with another spicy hot take in relation to one of it's articles:

I don't think Israel should be on this list, given that for millions of Palestinians, there is no democracy for them, only oppression, terrorization, and murder. A somebody. (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, but some kind of uniform transnational measurement is necessary for this page. Unless you have a comparable or better one that confirms your point, I think we're set with this one. Bongolian (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm also on the fence on this one. Recently I've removed the "authoritarian regimes" category from a bunch of countries, but I kept it on the Israel article. For the sake of consistency, either we remove Israel from this page or we remove the category from that page as well. I'm open to both options. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be classifying anything on "feelings" alone. I am not aware of any source that would consider Israel authoritarian (the Economist ranking for instance has Israel as a "flawed democracy", just below the United States). If someone can provide a reasonable citation arguing otherwise, fine, but at the moment that classification is very much ^{[citation needed]} to me, and should be removed IMHO unless someone comes up with more evidence.

Note that apartheid type structures can be integrated in a democratic regime -- see the Jim Crow era Southern United States for an excellent historical proto-example of that. This is probably more akin to what Israel could much more arguably be classified as (there's an entire Wiki article on that discussion.) On RW, Israel's already classified as "apartheid", and I think that is appropriate. But what the fuck is up with the "communism" and "fascism" labels for Israel? Are people throwing the kitchen sink of categories at things they don't personally like again?

For that matter, the Confederate States of America weren't authoritarian either. Even Hungary is a somewhat questionable (though more arguable) inclusion given that they are more a "hybrid regime". BobJohnson (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Mapai was very left-wing and that's probably why that category is on there I don't agree with it because Mapai wasn't communist but still. And even if we discount the slavery aspect of the CSA for some reason, it was still very, very authoritarian even when compared to the union! A somebody. (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Bob brought a fair point, but I think that the concept of democracy has changed over the years. It excluded women in Athens (indeed, a better example than the US under Jim Crow IMHO would be Switzerland, since women couldn't vote there until the 1970s IIRC). In my book, when a country does not treat equally its citizens, it cannot be democratic. Though, again, you can argue that Gaza isn't actually Israel's territory as it is governed by the Hamas, and that Palestinians living under Israel have the same rights as other citizens. Then I would still disagree with you, but I think it is at least possible to sustain this position. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Do Palestinians living in the west bank have the same rights as Palestinians living in Israel itself? After all they have effectively lived under Israel's thump for decades at this point. A somebody. (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is 'officially' apart of Israel and yet most of them aren't citizens because Israel keeps denying their applications! A somebody. (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) As I said, I don't think so. At least in theory, to my knowledge, everyone has the same rights in Israel, but in practice I think there are significant disparities. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair, but a democracy that denies rights to large ethnic groups based solely on their ethnicity they are at best heavily flawed, and at worst outright authoritarian. So again I don't think Israel should be on this list. A somebody. (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's my opinion too. I want to know what the EIU Democracy Index will look like in their next edition. I hope Israel at least becomes a hybrid regime. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaza is under military occupation by Israel. So, Gaza is not really akin to a foreign country under invasion by Israel. It's more like a Native American reservation or concentration camp. Carthage (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If Israel is to be removed, then Malaysia should be for the same reason (the Bumiputra laws). I don't however support removal of Israel or Malaysia, primarily because it misses the point of the page: Is the prosecution of crimes against former leaders an important aspect of democracies? It has been argued with false claims by two authoritarians who have tried to co-opt democracies (Berlusconi then Trump) that it is not. The evidence though is that functioning and independent judiciaries that are able to prosecute leader/criminals is an important aspect of rule of law, and a functioning democracy. In the case of Israel, it is fairly clear that it does have a functioning and independent judiciary, but due to Netanyahu's machinations it is close to the edge of collapse. I suggest that instead of removal, a note be added for Israel and Malaysia for the apartheid issue. Bongolian (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Does that 'Independent and Functioning' Judiciary apply to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank? That is a rhetorical question because the answer is 'no' and has been 'no' for a very long time. A somebody. (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider countries who oppress large portions of their population to be truly democratic. I would consider that to be authoritarian. You have to rely on authority to enforce systemic oppression after all. It wasn't janitors or pickup drivers who were beating the shit out of the Selma marchers, it was the police. The authorities. If you resist oppression, it's the authority who is gonna crack down on you, because that resistance is a threat to the system that perpetuates that authority. Carthage (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that authoritarianism is not defined by oppression per se, it is defined as a government system. Generally speaking, authoritarian governments are highly concentrated centralized strong executives (or military/junta rule) with limited political pluralism and either sham voting or no voting at all. To me, this does not describe the core of Israel at all. Now, having said that, Israel made it into the Wiki authoritarian page on the grounds of the government of the occupied territories; I agree that there's where the label starts to fit. BobJohnson (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Then that's a definitional issue, not a problem of substance. If you have a system with vertical structures of power, you're gonna need coercive authority to enforce that power. That means you have systems of oppression and exploitation. You can call that a bug, but I think an argument can be made that oppression is a feature of vertical structures of power. Moving aside from analyses of power structures, even democratic governments can have authoritarian features. People are acting like this is a hard boundary between two vague concepts and not the reality that these are abstractions used to describe complex systems of social relationships. There is room for overlap here. I think apartheid is inherently authoritarian, even if it is integrated into a nominally democratic government. Is that government really democratic if it's excluding a large portion of the population from fair and equal participation in government in a systematic manner? Carthage (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)