Justice vs. democracy: Le Pen verdict exposes tensions within France’s system
| Paris
France’s far-right leader Marine Le Pen has long had a singular ambition: to become France’s next president.
But that dream came crashing down on Monday, when Ms. Le Pen – alongside eight members of European Parliament and 12 party assistants – was found guilty of embezzling European Union funds. As a consequence, she was barred from running for office for five years, with immediate effect.
Ms. Le Pen was also sentenced to four years in prison (though she would only serve two, under house arrest) and forced to pay a €100,000 ($108,000) fine. But it is the halt of her political ascent that looks to be most distressing for Ms. Le Pen, who was favored to win the presidency in 2027 after being edged out in 2022 by now-President Emmanuel Macron.
Why We Wrote This
During President Donald Trump’s legal cases, experts debated whether it would be fair to deny voters the opportunity to cast ballots for him in 2024. In France, such a scenario is being realized around now-convicted far-right leader and presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen.
Ms. Le Pen is expected to appeal the judge’s decision, and her party, National Rally, is scrambling to find a suitable replacement – most likely Jordan Bardella, the party president. But Ms. Le Pen’s supporters say she was unfairly targeted by the judicial system and have called the decision undemocratic – specifically its use of the ineligibility clause.
This is hardly the first time a French politician has been barred from running for office. Former French Prime Minister François Fillon was ruled ineligible for ten years in 2020 following a guilty verdict, as was right-wing politician Alain Juppé in 2004.
But the Le Pen case has raised questions about the tension between France’s justice and electoral systems – and where that leaves the will of the people.
“Checks and balances are part of a traditional democratic system. The issue here is not what Le Pen has done and whether it was against the law,” says Hall Gardner, professor emeritus of political science at the American University of Paris. “The issue is whether the punishment should have included Le Pen’s ineligibility to run again. ... and whether that part of the decision was politically motivated.”
Justice served?
Ms. Le Pen has long considered herself and her party to be victims of the mainstream political establishment. She told French television viewers on Monday night that she was “scandalized” by the verdict, which she said “violates the rule of law.”
And Marion Maréchal, Ms. Le Pen’s niece and a member of the European Parliament, posted on social network X after the verdict was announced that, “Judges, thinking themselves above the sovereign people, have decided to execute in a court of law the woman they were never able to force back at the ballot box.”
During France’s 2024 legislative elections, tactical voting by other parties prevented the National Rally from securing the prime minister position, despite winning 37% of the vote in the second round, says Camille Lons, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Paris.
“The ruling only deepens the party’s argument that the system is rigged against them,” says Ms. Lons. It is “a narrative that could galvanize their base and strengthen their support heading into 2027.”
The court did acknowledge that the 2027 presidential election was a factor in its decision. “[We] took into consideration, in addition to the risk of reoffending, the major disturbance of public order if a person already convicted ... was a candidate in the presidential election,” said Bénédicte de Perthuis, the presiding judge.
France’s legal community is split on the fairness of the verdict. According to a 2016 anti-corruption law, public officials found guilty of embezzling public funds are subject to ineligibility for running for office. However, the same law allows for judges to make exceptions to the ineligibility clause based on the person or case involved.
Ms. Le Pen “has committed a fault in the financing of the political party and must be punished for this,” says Caroline Yvernault, a Paris-based lawyer who focuses on public law. But “my opinion is that she should be allowed to stand for election and be able to debate her ideas, [which] have to be criticized democratically during the election campaign, rather than being dismissed by the courts.
“This could be seen as an attack on the separation of powers, because the sanction of ineligibility seems disproportionate in relation to precedents.”
“Head high, clean hands”
Ms. Le Pen’s opponents have lauded Monday’s decision, saying that politicians can’t consider themselves above the law. Indeed, 63% of French people consider their politicians to be corrupt, according to an annual poll by the Ipsos marketing research company.
It could set a precedent going forward, especially amid the trial of former President Nicolas Sarkozy over illegal campaign financing and misappropriation of public funds. Mr. Sarkozy faces up to seven years in prison and could be barred from running for office for five years.
At a minimum, the Le Pen verdict could sever her party’s claim to an old slogan once used by the National Front, before Ms. Le Pen renamed it the National Rally: “Head high, clean hands,” which signified its distance from corrupt politicians.
Judges have ruled that no longer applies to Ms. Le Pen.
