Late last month, a French court barred Marine Le Pen from standing for political office for five years, on the grounds that her party, the far-right National Rally (RN), systematically embezzled more than 4 million euros (US$4.6 million) in public funds. Resources earmarked for staff of members of the European Parliament in Brussels were instead used to cover RN’s expenses back in France.
Le Pen is appealing the verdict, and her supporters are not the only ones finding fault with it. Impeccably liberal voices are also arguing that it would be better to allow Le Pen to stand in the 2027 presidential election and be judged by voters. Yet these arguments for prioritizing politics over the law are deeply flawed.
One such argument echoes US Vice President J.D. Vance’s claim that European political elites do not trust their own people. The way he tells it, they have no problem nullifying election results that are not to their liking. His example is the recent Romanian presidential election, which was declared invalid after the far-right candidate, Calin Georgescu, won the first round. Concluding that he had failed to “comply with the electoral regulations,” the Romanian electoral bureau prohibited him from standing altogether.
Short of bans, European elites have excluded far-right parties from governing. The most important recent example of this is Germany’s “firewall”: a commitment by all the other major parties not to govern with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which finished second in the February federal elections.
Yet there is absolutely no evidence that the French judiciary was acting at the behest of politicians or, more important, that it was picking on Le Pen. Plenty of other politicians, including decidedly establishment figures — such as former French prime minister Francois Fillon (also a one-time presidential front-runner) — have been convicted of embezzlement. Even former French presidents like Nicolas Sarkozy have been found guilty of corruption. Le Pen had always called for harsh punishments in such cases, yet now she conveniently believes that the people themselves are the supreme court.
There is a categorical difference between sanctioning a particular candidate for illegal conduct and removing an entire political option from the electoral menu. The latter is characteristic of the approach known as “militant democracy,” as practiced most prominently in Germany. Here an entire party is banned, because its program and leadership seek the destruction of the liberal democratic order.
One can debate the legitimacy of such bans, since it is reasonable to worry that actions aimed at preserving democracy can themselves end up damaging it. However, this is not the question at issue with the Le Pen verdict. Her party will remain on the ballot, and although the RN has always been a Le Pen family enterprise, it would be odd to argue that preserving democracy requires this to remain the case.
Moreover, showing leniency to popular politicians who have broken the law can have dire consequences for democracy as such. After all, it would signal that such figures are above the law, as in the US, where the Supreme Court has declared US President Donald Trump immune from prosecution for any official act.
While some observers assumed that Trump would be chastened by his many narrow legal escapes (not to mention two impeachments), he was emboldened. His second term has already been a parade of lawlessness, reflecting his belief that he is the law. Worse, many voters will infer that Trump’s behavior is generally fine, because elite institutions like the Supreme Court have effectively said so.
Leniency for popular politicians also risks creating a perverse incentive to enter politics to avoid encounters with the courts. Former Italiam prime minister Silvio Berlusconi ran for office in the 1990s partly because he knew that he was being investigated for bribery and tax fraud. For two decades thereafter, he managed to shield himself from the law. (In 2013, he was convicted of tax fraud, barred from holding office for two years and sentenced to perform community service.)
Those skeptical of deploying the law properly against populist leaders also claim that convictions would allow such politicians to present themselves as martyrs — possibly boosting their popularity. Le Pen now declares herself the victim of a “witch hunt” by elites who wish for her “political death.”
However, populist politicians always claim to be victims of corrupt liberal elites who have ignored “the people” and sought to sideline their authentic representatives. A conviction can of course be portrayed to a populist’s supporters as evidence of an elite conspiracy, but the narrative is created not by court cases, but by the populists.
One also might worry that verdicts against self-declared anti-establishment politicians could undermine confidence in the judiciary and, in this case, strengthen a longstanding French aversion to “government by judges.” However, here, too, the critics have it backwards: Populists routinely attack independent judges as “enemies of the people.”
Rather than making unforced concessions when it comes to the rule of law, politicians — as well as legal professionals, journalists and academics — should make the case that impartial courts are crucial both for serving justice and for sustaining what the judges in Paris called a “democratic public order.”
Jan-Werner Mueller, professor of politics at Princeton University, is the author, most recently, of Democracy Rules.Copyright: Project Syndicate
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS