Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Denouncing judges for being too soft on criminals is an anti-establishment staple for France’s far-right politicians. On Monday, they needed a different line of attack. A Paris criminal court imposed the most severe punishment possible on their leader, Marine Le Pen, for embezzling EU funds. Le Pen was sentenced to two years in jail — or at least wearing an electronic tag — with two more suspended, fined €100,000 and barred from running for office with immediate effect for five years. Though she will appeal, the ban seriously jeopardises Le Pen’s candidacy for the 2027 presidential election — which would have been her fourth bid for the Elysée palace, and probably the most propitious.
Le Pen’s allies attacked the tough sentence as outrageous judicial over-reach. The court had not only “unjustly” convicted the leader of the Rassemblement National party, but also “executed” French democracy, fumed her deputy Jordan Bardella. Fellow populist leaders across Europe chimed in. The Kremlin fretted about the erosion of democratic standards. More surprisingly, even some of Le Pen’s staunchest political foes in France condemned the court for depriving voters of the right to choose.
The court, though, was doing its job of upholding the rules of conduct in elected office. EU and French authorities began investigating claims of embezzlement by RN officials a decade ago. Prosecutors assembled ample evidence that nine former lawmakers and their assistants knowingly and systematically misused more than €4mn in European parliament funds for French political activities. Le Pen played a central role in the fraud dating back to 2009, the court found. Politicians from the centrist MoDem party were previously convicted of similar offences.
The question is whether barring Le Pen from future elections, even while her appeal is pending, is fair punishment. It was not automatic. Delivering the court’s verdict, presiding judge Bénédicte de Perthuis noted that the sentence had to be proportionate. Given Le Pen’s role in the fraud to skew electoral politics in her party’s favour, the judge concluded that it was. She also argued legitimately that it would undermine the rule of law if Le Pen was able to escape punishment by winning the presidency after which courts would be reluctant to uphold a sentence. In essence, the court decided that the rights of all French voters to uncorrupted elections outweighed the right of a subset to vote for a particular candidate.
Even so, the political ramifications of Le Pen’s debarring could be far-reaching. She is certain to emulate Donald Trump in portraying herself as the victim of an establishment conspiracy, hoping to fire up her supporters and win over other voters fed up with President Emmanuel Macron and the mainstream parties. The Trump administration may well vilify France for curtailing democratic rights, much as it did Romania for excluding a far-right presidential candidate. But, unlike in the Romanian case, Le Pen has been convicted by a court.
Le Pen may seek revenge by bringing down the minority government led by centrist François Bayrou. As the leader of MoDem, he was acquitted of involvement in his party’s EP funding scandal, but prosecutors are appealing that decision. Even if Le Pen’s legal appeals fail, the RN could yet grow stronger under Bardella. The slick communicator lacks Le Pen’s experience but also her record of presidential campaign failures.
Le Pen’s disqualification will make French politics more combustible. But it is not the court’s job to make political decisions either way. That it is accused of doing so shows just how far respect for the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy has been weakened across the west.
