Prosecuting Political Leaders for Crimes Is Healthy for Democracies

Last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy became the first former head of an EU country to serve time in prison. He will be held in solitary confinement, with limited access to the phone and specific visiting times. Although his case is unusual for the European Union, it is not unique at all. In democratic countries, these types of prosecutions have become increasingly common in recent years. Countries such as France, Brazil and the United States have witnessed intense legal and political battles over the prosecution of their elected leaders.

Supporters of such prosecutions claim they strengthen democracy by promoting accountability, while opponents say they erode trust and lead to polarization. But what impact do these prosecutions actually have? To answer this question, we created a comprehensive new dataset on contemporary leaders who have been put on trial by their governments. Our research has confirmed that despite what men like Sarkozy, US President Donald Trump, and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro may insist, putting a former president or prime minister on trial is normal and healthy for advanced democracies.

Last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy became the first former head of an EU country to serve time in prison. He will be held in solitary confinement, with limited access to the phone and specific visiting times. Although his case is unusual for the European Union, it is not unique at all. In democratic countries, these types of prosecutions have become increasingly common in recent years. Countries such as France, Brazil and the United States have witnessed intense legal and political battles over the prosecution of their elected leaders.

Supporters of such prosecutions claim they strengthen democracy by promoting accountability, while opponents say they erode trust and lead to polarization. But what impact do these prosecutions actually have? To answer this question, we created a comprehensive new dataset on contemporary leaders who have been put on trial by their governments. Our research has confirmed that despite what men like Sarkozy, US President Donald Trump, and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro may insist, putting a former president or prime minister on trial is normal and healthy for advanced democracies.

Between 1989 and 2021, more than three-quarters of democratic and mixed regimes filed at least one lawsuit against a former leader. (We excluded autocrats because prosecution policy follows a different logic in such regimes.) Of the more than 800 non-authoritarian leaders who ruled during that period, more than a quarter were put on trial by their governments – sometimes more than once. About two-thirds of those prosecuted faced only one charge. But others have made multiple charges, with a few as extreme as former Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, each charged with 14 charges.

Looking back in history, there are roughly three phases in the prevalence of leader prosecutions: an increase between the late 1980s and 2000, then a slowdown after the turn of the millennium, followed by another rapid increase over the past decade.

The geography is mixed, with South America and the Middle East leading, but the general trend is clear. Prosecutions are no longer a magic cure or a diversion, but rather now appear to be part of the natural repertoire of democratic disagreement. They do not, on average, seem to destroy the political health of any country. Our preliminary data find that democracies that impeach former leaders do not become more polarized thereafter, nor do they tend toward partisan retaliation.

Are domestic prosecutions the province of weak or corrupt democracies? After Trump was accused in March 2023 of paying for silence, he took to social media to protest. “The United States is now a Third World country, a nation in serious decline,” he wrote in all capital letters. He implied that only corrupt or undeveloped countries might consider prosecuting their leaders. One of his sons, Eric Trump, quickly echoed that sentiment, calling the indictment a case of “Third World prosecutorial misconduct.”

However, evidence suggests that domestic prosecutions are not the province of “banana republics” and are more likely to occur in wealthy and stable countries. We found no evidence that prosecutions increase the chances of democracy collapsing, nor did we find any link between economic wealth (measured by per capita GDP) and the likelihood of prosecution. State capacity did not seem to matter either—states with weak capacity indicators were no more likely to be prosecuted than states with strong institutions. In short, prosecutions can and do happen anywhere.

A common negative aspect of trials is increased polarization and decreased trust in the political system. We found no evidence to suggest that prosecution increases polarization, but we did find that polarized countries may be more likely to initiate prosecutions in the first place. Prosecutions of leaders are also more common in countries with stronger judiciaries, suggesting a link between strong courts and the willingness to pursue charges. One consistent finding is that an initial prosecution does not appear to increase the likelihood of further prosecutions, suggesting that revenge spirals are not the norm.

Another key question is whether these prosecutions are achieving real results or whether they remain just political farce. We found that nearly half of the charges resulted in acquittal and dismissal. However, the second highest outcome, at approximately 22%, was imprisonment. In an approximately equal number of cases, defendants were convicted, but instead of imprisonment, they paid fines, endured house arrest, or received a pardon.

In light of this, prosecution attempts in countries such as France and the United States are not an anomaly, but rather part of a broader pattern of modern governance. Modern countries should not be afraid to go after their former leaders. Instead, they should worry about failing to do so. Historical records suggest that, in the long run, democracies are more likely to falter when they hold rulers above the law rather than holding them accountable.