A FRENCH COURT has found Marine Le Pen, the leader of the country’s far-right movement, guilty of embezzlement of EU funds and has barred her from running for office for five years. The ban takes effect immediately and will remain in place even while Ms Le Pen appeals. In other respects, however, it is in line with numerous other such verdicts in France, for example against Alain Juppé, a former prime minister who in 2004 was also barred from running for office for abuse of public funds.
Nevertheless, the verdict—which is very likely to keep Ms Le Pen from running in the 2027 French presidential election—has shocked her party, the National Rally (RN), shaken French politics and received much international attention. Many, including The Economist, argue that it is a mistake and will only further strengthen the RN. These assessments not only represent a questionable position on the rule of law, they also misjudge the importance of this decision for strengthening liberal democracy.
While the consequences of the court decision are open to debate, it should go without saying that in a liberal democracy the law needs to be applied. Even if we came to the conclusion that the verdict will ultimately strengthen the RN, this should not affect our assessment of the verdict as right or wrong. Thinking about the counterfactual should make this abundantly clear. Do we really want to argue that the law should not be applied to far-right politicians because decisions might empower them? Such arguments undermine the rule of law—one of the fundamental principles needed to defend against far-right authoritarians.
Criticisms of the court decision do not only ignore this basic point about the rule of law. They also have important blind spots when it comes to assessing the consequences of the ruling.
One argument is that the verdict will strengthen the RN electorally as it will mobilise the party’s base and play into its narrative of being the victim of political persecution. However, the electoral consequences of the court decision are more complex than that.
Above everything else, the RN is—barring a successful appeal—going to lose its most popular and skilled politician. In France’s highly personalised political system, there can be no doubt that the absence of Ms Le Pen will hurt the RN in future elections. Even if the verdict stokes up parts of the French far right, it will be difficult to make up for the loss of its main candidate in the next presidential vote.
In the long run, too, the absence of Ms Le Pen may prove difficult for the RN. Like other far-right parties, it is organised strongly top-down, with a dominant role for its leader. It is far from obvious that Jordan Bardella, the RN’s 29-year-old president, will be able to move smoothly into this role.
Another argument made by those critical of the verdict is that it will further increase social tensions and polarisation. Even if that were the case, what is the alternative? Trying to appease the far right by giving it what it wants? On immigration, most parties of the mainstream left and right have already followed this strategy, demanding or enacting increasingly restrictive measures on immigration and asylum. But this has not weakened the far right; if anything it has strengthened it. Appeasement of authoritarians, whether domestic or on the international stage (see Donald Trump), does not work. Instead it empowers the far right and demoralises those who want to stand up for liberal democracy.
There are two other consequences of the court decision, and both should be receiving more attention. First, far-right parties often rely on corruption and gang-like structures to run their organisation and solidify their support base. Criminal activities are common within these structures: they align well with the disregard for the liberal state and its institutions that is an essential part of far-right ideology. Failure to punish these activities ultimately empowers far-right violence, which is already on the rise in many European countries. It should be celebrated when the institutions of liberal democracy fight back and find effective ways of punishing the criminal behaviour that is at the core of many far-right movements.
Second, the consequences of the ruling should be viewed within the context of the increasing normalisation of the far right in Europe, which has been key to the movement’s increasing success. Public opinion today is not necessarily more aligned with the far right than it was 20 years ago. What has changed, however, is that the stigma around the ideology that once kept people from supporting it openly—and voting for it—has gradually disappeared.
Court decisions are important moments in expressing norms. They signal to citizens what is and isn’t accepted in a society. At a time when many political parties are accommodating the far right and increasingly adopting its positions, the Le Pen verdict reinstates a liberal-democratic norm. While it is true that those who espouse liberal democracy have become too reliant on courts to protect its institutions, this should be seen as a call for democratic politicians to do more, not for courts to do less.
Overall, the ruling against Ms Le Pen should be regarded as what it is: the rule of law at work. And anyone considering its consequences should not just assume that it will strengthen support for her, her party and its ideology. On the contrary, the decision marks an important moment for empowering liberal democracy against the threat of the far right. ■
Tarik Abou-Chadi is professor of European politics at Nuffield College, University of Oxford.