Late last month, a French court banned Marine Le Pen from running for political office for the next five years, saying her party, the far-right National Front (now the National Rally), had systematically embezzled more than 4 million euros (about $4,5 million) in public funds. Funds intended for staffing MEPs in Brussels were used to cover the party’s expenses in France.
Le Pen is determined to appeal the verdict, which is considered wrong not only by her supporters. Even unquestionably liberal voices argue that it would be better for Le Pen to run in the 2027 presidential election - so that her political fate can be decided by voters. However, all these arguments about the priority of politics over the law are deeply flawed.
One of the arguments echoes the claims of US Vice President J.D. Vance, who claims that the European political elite allegedly does not trust its people. According to him, the elite sees no problem in overturning the results of elections that they do not like. An example is the recent presidential election in Romania, which was declared invalid after the far-right candidate Calin Đorđescu won in the first round. Having concluded that he did not “respect electoral regulations,” the Romanian electoral commission banned him from running.
But even without resorting to bans, the European elite is not allowing extreme right-wing parties to come to power. The most important example of this now is the “firewall” in Germany: the obligation of major parties not to cooperate with the far-right “Alternative for Germany” (AfD), which came in second place in the February federal elections.
There is, however, absolutely no evidence that the French justice system acted at the behest of politicians or, more importantly, that it unfairly targeted Le Pen. Many other politicians, including figures who are clearly establishment (such as former Prime Minister François Fillon, who was also a leading presidential candidate), have been sentenced for robbery. And former presidents, such as Nicolas Sarkozy, have been found guilty of corruption. Le Pen has always called for harsh sentences in such cases, but now she finds it more convenient to claim that the people are the supreme court.
There is a fundamental difference between punishing a particular candidate for illegal behavior and excluding an entire political option from the electoral offer. The latter is characteristic of approaches called “militant democracy.” They are most clearly practiced in Germany. There, an entire party is banned because its program and leadership seek to destroy the liberal-democratic order.
The legitimacy of such bans is debatable, as it is a reasonable concern that some actions that are supposed to protect democracy could end up harming it. But in the case of Le Pen, there is no such problem. Her party remains on the ballot, and although it has always been a family business of the Le Pen clan, it would be strange to argue that defending democracy requires it to remain so.
Moreover, leniency towards popular politicians who have broken the law can have extremely negative consequences for democracy. It would signal that there are figures who are above the law, as is the case in the US, where the Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump immunity from prosecution for any official actions.
Some observers believed that Trump would suffer the consequences after numerous lawsuits from which he barely escaped (not to mention two impeachments), but his position has only been strengthened. Trump’s second term has already become a parade of lawlessness, reflecting his belief that he is the law itself. Worse, many voters will conclude that Trump’s behavior is generally perfectly normal, because elite institutions, such as the Supreme Court, have essentially said so.
Leniency towards popular politicians risks creating the wrong incentives for those who would like to avoid the courts to enter politics. Silvio Berlusconi ran for office in the 1990s partly for this reason: he knew he was being investigated for bribery and tax fraud. And he managed to evade the law for 20 years. (It was only in 2013 that he was found guilty of tax evasion, disqualified from holding public office for two years, and sentenced to community service.)
Skeptics of the proper application of the law to populist leaders also argue that the convictions allow such politicians to portray themselves as martyrs, which can boost their popularity. Le Pen has already declared herself the victim of a “witch hunt” conducted by an elite seeking her “political death.”
But populist politicians always portray themselves as victims of a corrupt liberal elite that ignores “the people” and seeks to suppress their true representatives. Of course, to populist supporters, the verdict may be presented as evidence of an elite conspiracy. But these are not the thoughts of the courts, but of the populists themselves.
One might also fear that sentencing politicians who have declared themselves anti-elite fighters could undermine trust in the justice system and, in this particular case, reinforce France’s long-standing aversion to “the rule of judges.” But here too, the critics are wrong: populists already routinely call independent judges “enemies of the people.”
Instead of unnecessarily compromising the rule of law, politicians (as well as lawyers, journalists, and scholars) should explain that impartial courts are essential not only for the administration of justice, but also for preserving what the judges in Paris called “democratic public order.”
Rather than making unforced concessions when it comes to the rule of law, politicians – as well as lawyers, journalists and academics – should make it clear that impartial courts are essential both for the administration of justice and for preserving what the judges in Paris called “democratic public order”.
The author is a professor at Princeton University
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025. (translation: NR)
Bonus video:
