Does the conviction of Marine Le Pen set a dangerous precedent?

Judicial interference in democracy is never a good idea.

I suppose we might call it ‘demophobia’, a fear of the common people harboured by many European elites. Vice-president J. D. Vance drew attention to this phenomenon at his recent talk at the Munich Security Conference when he accused leaders of ‘running in fear of your own voters’. His address was greeted with scorn by many of its targets, but the conviction of Marine Le Pen in France might suggest that he has a point.

Le Pen has been found guilty of embezzling EU funds for her own party’s activities. Although it is probable that she will only serve half of her four-year prison term under house arrest, this judgement makes her ineligible to run for the presidency in the 2027 elections. While no-one is above the law, there is little doubt that there is a politicised aspect to this trial and the severity of the penalty. If I were a French citizen I would not be supporting Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, but nor would I be pleased to hear that a judge has deprived me of making a choice.

The allegations of two-tier justice are not without substance. As Telegraph writer Nile Gardiner has pointed out, ‘barely any Eurofederalists have faced trial for these kinds of charges in France’. Many commentators – included those who are hostile to Le Pen’s policies – have been quick to point out that this conviction is a spurious affront to democracy. Not for the first time, the political neutrality of the court is under grave suspicion.

The weaponisation of the judiciary is now common practice in western politics. In the US, we saw the law being contorted to see misdemeanour charges against Donald Trump artificially elevated to felonies even though they were well beyond the statute of limitations. That trial was presided over by a judge who had violated New York rules against judges making donations to any political group. In this case, the fund was specifically earmarked for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy’. Even legal scholars opposed to Trump were quick to note that all of this seemed to ‘push the outer boundaries of the law and due process’.

Last year’s general election in Romania was overturned by the courts on the flimsiest of pretexts; in this case that Russian bots had gulled the electorate into voting the ‘wrong way’. We heard that kind of nonsense from politicians here in the UK after the plebeians defied the wishes of their overlords and voted for Brexit back in 2016. Let’s face it, the idea that the population votes on cue at the direction of online posts – or indeed that anyone cast a vote according to a misleading slogan on the side of a bus – stretches credulity.

We have seen before this determination to settle democratic matters by limiting the options for the electorate. There have been repeated calls to ban the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, a country whose history must surely act as a cautionary tale against the outlawing of political parties. While there are obnoxious elements within the AfD, much of their support has been garnered in recent years thanks to the failures of the political class to address legitimate grievances around mass migration and the impact on citizens’ safety. Dismissing all AfD supporters as racist has not inhibited their momentum, and so bans are the obvious next step.

This mistrust in democracy is hugely misplaced. There is little doubt that the conviction of Le Pen, the frontrunner in the polls, risks enhancing her appeal to voters who are convinced that the establishment will do anything it can to ignore their wishes. Democracy is far from perfect, but it is preferable to authoritarianism. As the Minister of Justice Gérald Darmanin – hardly a fan of Le Pen – has argued, she ‘must be fought at the ballot box, not elsewhere’.

Ultimately, one’s views of Le Pen and her party are immaterial when it comes to this question of the primacy of democracy. There is an undeniable trend of western political elites using the courts to settle matters that should remain in the hands of the voting public. Those cheering on Le Pen’s conviction ought to be aware that the other side, when in power, could well manipulate the courts for their own purposes. This is a pandora’s box that is best left unopened. Opponents of Le Pen need to win the argument, not prevent the voters from having any choice at all.

---