As some readers may remember, last March I wrote a long-winded, bleeding-heart whine-fest about how Chirac would never be brought to justice for the complex, multifaceted hive of criminality that was his 18-year tenure as mayor of Paris.

He still hasn't, incidentally, at least not by any modern usage of the word "justice." Still, Thursday's conviction and feeble sentencing is far from the total wuss-out that I and just about everyone else following the case expected. The decision is historically significant for several reasons:

  • Chirac becomes the first former French president since infamous Nazi collaborator Maréchal Pétain to be convicted of a crime in a French court. That is some gnarly company for a modern president who once enjoyed some pretty impressive approval ratings: Pétain is perhaps the most reviled figure in modern French history, and being mentioned in the same breath won't do much for Chirac's legacy.
  • The criminal court's judgment reaffirmed the independence of the French criminal justice system under a Sarkozy regime that has not always, to put it mildly, defended this separation so crucial to the republican model. They even went so far as to openly criticize the Parisian prosecutors who, in an act of cronyism par excellence, defended Chirac in the face of insurmountable evidence and worked from the very beginning to postpone the trial ad infinitum.
  • Presidential immunity is a hot subject these days, and a judgment such as this less than five months before a presidential election ought to force the question of presidential immunity onto the agenda of those who wish to occupy the post for the next five years. Chirac hid behind his immunity for 12 years, and then used it afterwards to shield himself from prosecution for all (alleged) crimes committed while he was president (once a crook, always a crook...). Now that there has been a conviction, the length, cost and general ardor of this trial can only serve as proof for those who want to restrict or eliminate the total immunity currently enjoyed by a sitting French president.
  • The symbolic value of this decision could have practical effects in the short term as well. As a recent Le Monde editorial notes, this ruling comes down in the context of multiple investigations into the finances of French politicians and parties; any current or future president would be mistaken to take this development likely. If the mafia-esque power of someone of Chirac's stature isn't enough to protect oneself from prosecution for crimes committed decades ago, no one is safe.
  • Lastly, the court deserves credit for not bowing to the "humanitarian" arguments of Chirac's supporters, who claimed that a 79-year-old man suffering from "mental fatigue" ought to be spared the public humiliation of a criminal conviction. In the court's eyes, Chirac's lawyers exhausted the humanitarian angle when they won Chirac's personal exclusion from the trial itself. Bravo.

While one might lament the lack of actual punishment in the sentence—a two-year suspended sentence will hardly upset the life of an old and very rich man busy writing the next volume of his memoirs in one of any number of luxurious family dwellings—there was never any question of actual jail time, nor of a financial penalty sufficient to impact such an enormous fortune. In a time when politicians and other wealthy, powerful people seem increasingly above the law, the symbolic impact of this decision—as well as its practical effect on future leaders—is both meaningful and relevant. Just for a moment there, I felt like I saw a living example of the republican values upon which this country was allegedly built.

All things considered, I don't think we could have expected anything more.