On the 31st March the leader of the French far-right party (The National Rally), Marine Le Pen, was banned from running in the 2027 presidential election. She was convicted of embezzlement of European Union funds in a French court, resulting in a five-year public office ban, a four year prison sentence as well as an €100,000 fine. Le Pen has been a major political player in France for years, with messages of anti-immigration and anti-EU. She stepped down as the head of the National Rally party in 2022, hoping to instead secure the French presidency in the upcoming election. However, the recent decision to effectively ban her from French politics, has made her an unlikely candidate for the role.
This decision has sparked sharp political division as well as broader concerns about democratic erosion. For supporters of Le Pen, the decision represents an outright judicial interference in the democratic process, as electoral decisions should be left to the electorate rather than the courts. However, for others, this can be seen as another attempt by a populist leader in Europe to delegitimise judicial institutions, with Le Pen framing herself as a victim of the system. Either way, this case highlights the vulnerability of democracy when legal accountability is intertwined with populist rhetoric.
Le Pen’s immediate response to the ruling was to call it a ‘political’ decision that was a ‘violation of the state of law’. This is emblematic of the ‘paranoid style’ of politics that Richard Hofstadter describes. This style of politics involves more than a simple disagreement between political institutions, but rather that a ‘conspiratorial network is set in motion to undermine a way of life’. Le Pen has rejected the due process of the court, framing the decision as a strategic endeavor to end her presidential ambitions. This aligns with Hofstadter’s concept with Le Pen positioning her not as a defendant in a legal case, and instead as a victim of an anti-democratic plot. This sentiment is echoed by her European far-right allies who, in the paranoid style, believe that the decision of the court feeds off an ‘evil’ that is behind otherwise legitimate institutions. This strategy is particularly dangerous as it erodes the foundations of democratic legitimacy. Le Pen has argued that only the electorate should be able to decide, refusing to accept the legitimacy of the judiciary’s ruling. Therefore, judicial oversight is portrayed as an undemocratic obstacle to popular sovereignty, rather than a necessary check and balance on power that upholds democratic norms.
The broader implications of the reaction to this decision by the French court echo some of Ergun Ozbudun’s observations about Turkish President Erdogan. Ozbudun argues that Erdogan’s transformation of the AKP into a dominant party led to ‘an excessively majoritarian conception of democracy’. In other words, electoral victory and the mandate that is earned from this can be seen as a license to override traditional constraints. This is concerning as majoritarianism left unchecked can easily turn into authoritarianism. In the case of Le Pen, claiming that the French court’s checks are illegitimate, this limits the ability of legal institutions to function as democratic safeguards. This narrative is being supported by far-right politicians across Europe, with Viktor Orban and Giorgia Meloni framing Le Pen’s trial as an attack on the people by unelected officials. This highlights a shared populist tactic, whereby institutions that are traditionally considered to upheld democracy are framed as enemies of said democratic values.
In conclusion, regardless of the outcome of Le Pen’s appeal to the court, there may be long-lasting damage to France’s political system. In the short term, there could be an increase in support for the Nation Rally party; presenting Le Pen as an outsider being persecuted by unelected officials fits into the far right’s anti-elite stance. However, in the long term there may be a weakening of public trust in the judiciary, a necessary institution to prevent democratic backsliding. The decision by the French court initially appears as a traditional example of judicial accountability, but the response by Le Pen and her allies highlights the ease with which accountability can be repositioned as injustice by populist politicians. Ultimately, this demonstrates how democratic institutions across Europe are under increased pressure due to the struggle between populist leaders and the rule of law.
I think this article shows how populist leaders can weaponize legal accountability to undermine democratic institutions by portraying themselves as victims of an elite conspiracy. Le Pen’s case shows how the line between justice and political persecution is easily blurred in polarized environments, especially when majoritarian rhetoric challenges the legitimacy of judicial oversight. If courts are discredited in the eyes of the public, how can democracies ensure accountability without appearing anti-democratic?”
I think there is a change Le Pen’s case could reinforce democracy in Europe. Obviously there are those on the right who will initially look to see this as illegitimate. But there is also an opportunity for French leaders to reaffirm the legitimacy of their judicial system with this conviction. It takes a lot of strength in a democracy to prosecute political figures of her stature. The US has been unable to do so not only recently with Donald Trump, but also failed to do so with President Nixon for Watergate or arguably Reagan for Iran-Contra. While those were already leaders that had been given democratic mandates, it still shows how difficult it is to carry out such a process. Which is why I hope there could be a path forward where history is the winner in this and Le Pen’s conviction is remembered the correct way. Fingers crossed.
I think it’s a very well constructed blog, and very valid in terms of showing how legal perceptions can be instrumentalized. It is also possible to expand on the public perception in France beyond Le Pen’s base though, how centrist or undecided voters may interpret the court’s decision and it’s effect on institutional trust and political polarization.
I really enjoyed this blog post. The paranoid way of thinking was a great tie in to this case it seems as though this strategy is being implemented more and more within our own political system. It was interesting to see how the act of trying delegitimize something like a court ruling could be the first steps towards autocratic rule.