If people cheat in a contest and you don't disqualify them, you give everyone an incentive to cheat: ideally they get away with not being found out, but even if they are found out their cheating can still have a positive RoI.
The only way to keep things fair is to exclude those who deliberately flaunt the rules, as is the case here.
But even aside from that, someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn't fit to enforce them.
> someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn’t fit to enforce them
To give an American example, if someone deliberately broke Jim Crow laws in the South they should be disqualified from office?
The problem with this approach is that it assumes court decisions are always just and correct. Based on numerous examples I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption.
Versus the opposite approach which says criminal convictions don’t automatically disqualify you, it’s up to the voters to decide if you’re fit for office.
I don't think every criminal conviction should disqualify someone from running for office, but definitely every election-related crime. If you embezzle funds to instead market yourself for the election, who's to say you won't use your new government power for the same purpose?
Who's to say that you won't use your new power to help your party colleagues get away with the same crime, but this time without the public knowing about it?
We could start by using election-related crimes as disqualifying events. Did you embezzle money to further your campaign? Sorry, you aren't allowed to participate.
Unless a justice system is captured by one party (like in the US), I trust it more to determine the truth than I trust politicians that want to abuse such "loopholes".
The only way to keep things fair is to exclude those who deliberately flaunt the rules, as is the case here.
But even aside from that, someone who deliberately breaks the rules isn't fit to enforce them.