In late March, a Paris court found French right-wing politician Marine Le Pen guilty of embezzling E.U. funds and banned her from holding public office for five years. Her supporters have reacted with outrage. Jordan Bardella, leader of Le Pen’s National Rally party, called the verdict “an execution” of French democracy. His party also hinted they could attempt to oust the government in retaliation. These reactions have fueled fears of a democratic crisis for France. Yet, many experts believe the conviction is a sign that the legal system is doing its job by making sure politicians are held responsible for their actions.
The French public appears to be divided. According to a recent poll, 42% thought the Le Pen decision was politically motivated, while 57% found it fair. Notably, The Economist published an editorial considering the sentence “ill-suited” and warning that the impact might compromise the legitimacy of the 2027 election.
These are dramatic but hardly surprising reactions. For years, Le Pen has portrayed herself as the defender of the people, fighting against an elite detached from the rest of society. Her narrative fits this latest conviction.
But legal scholars and political scientists argue that the French ruling does not point to democratic decay. Instead, it offers evidence of democratic resilience. As the European Commission also emphasizes, the rule of law should apply equally to everyone, including those in positions of power. Setting aside this principle in the name of fairness at the ballot box risks doing more to erode democracy than to protect it.
High-profile corruption has long plagued French politics
Le Pen’s corruption charge is not unprecedented. In 2011, former President Jacques Chirac was convicted of creating fake jobs during his time as mayor of Paris. He received a two-year sentence, which was suspended. Still, the ruling was a reminder that no one, not even former presidents, is above the law.
Cases like this led to a far-reaching anti-corruption measure in 2016, when France passed the Sapin II Act. The goal was to restore public trust in democratic institutions and improve the country’s international reputation. This law introduced stricter sanctions, including potential bans from holding public office for those convicted of corruption.
Since then, those measures have been put to the test. French prosecutors recently called for a seven-year prison sentence, a €300,000 ($330,000) fine, and a five-year political ban for former President Nicolas Sarkozy, in response to allegations of illegal campaign financing linked to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. A French court found Sarkozy guilty in 2021 of attempting to bribe a judge. He received a three-year sentence in that case – one year to be served under electronic surveillance, and two years were suspended. He was also barred from holding public office for three years.
Le Pen’s case is serious but not exceptional
Marine Le Pen’s case fits this pattern. She and 23 party leaders were charged with misusing several million euros in E.U. funding between 2004 and 2016 by falsely classifying National Rally employees as assistants in the European Parliament. In March 2025, a Paris court found them guilty and ordered a range of punishments, including fines, suspended prison sentences, and exclusion from public office.
The court sentenced Le Pen to four years imprisonment, two of which were suspended, and the remaining two possibly served under house arrest. She was also fined €100,000 ($111,000) and banned from public office for five years. The sentence effectively bumps her from the 2027 presidential race.
An appeals court will hear the case in summer 2026. Some observers argue that the ban should be lifted so Le Pen can run. They worry that excluding the leading presidential candidate will undermine public trust in France’s electoral process and, ultimately, consolidate Le Pen’s coalition of supporters.
The rule of law is not optional
But this reasoning is dangerous, others argue. Judges should not adjust their verdicts based on potential partisan outcomes or electoral implications. Otherwise, judicial independence ceases to function properly and risks engaging in a popularity contest.
The rule of law is especially relevant due to the far-right’s attacks on liberal democratic norms. Politicians like Le Pen have long positioned themselves as victims of a system rigged by a corrupt elite. They have accused judges, journalists, and mainstream politicians of conspiring against the will of “the people.” To many in Europe’s far right, any legal roadblock is an assault on democracy.
Some scholars argue the opposite is true: The best defense of democracy is an independent legal system. Political scientist Tarik Abou-Chadi emphasizes that the Le Pen verdict needs to serve as a reminder to liberal democracies that they need the rule of law more than ever. The claim that politicians should be exempt from legal accountability because of their current popularity, or their potential to gain more support, erodes the very essence of democracy. Ironically, this approach serves only to reinforce the populist claim that legal institutions are mere tools of political repression. As Cas Mudde and other political scientists argue, we need to ask politicians to do more to protect democracy, rather than ask courts to do less.
The European Union’s uneven fight against corruption
Le Pen’s case also highlights a broader concern: The European Union does not have a uniform anti-corruption policy that applies equally across all member states. That means there is no consistent way to define, monitor, or prosecute corruption. What one country might punish as corruption might be overlooked in another.
This inconsistency allows far-right leaders to argue that corrupt elites are using the judiciary as a political weapon. Legal challenges, thus, feed into their usual “us vs. them” story. And without a clear legal framework and effective monitoring and enforcement across the board, the E.U. does not have many good options to counter these accusations. Neither can it ensure the rule of law is applied fairly in all member states.
To its credit, the European Union has been moving toward a more integrated approach. But progress has been slow. Until there is more progress on this issue, we will likely hear more political leaders framing legal accountability as political persecution.
Regardless, Le Pen’s verdict is not an attack on democracy, many political scientists argue. Instead, it’s a defense of democracy. The preservation of the rule of law, even when it may seem politically costly, is what makes democratic institutions legitimate. The real danger lies not in enforcing the law, but in ignoring it for political convenience.
Mert Kartal is a 2025-2026 Good Authority fellow.
