The politicization of justice in France: What the Le Pen case reveals
By Samir Muradov
France has entered an era where institutions meant to remain above the fray are beginning to act as political players. The sentence handed down to Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally party, barring her from participating in the 2027 elections, is not a legal act but a demonstration of the state machinery’s power. This situation is not about justice—it is the instrumentalization of the law aimed at political neutralization.
Le Pen was found guilty of misusing European Union funds in connection with allegedly fictitious assistants paid from the European Parliament’s budget between 2004 and 2016. Although such practices are common in European politics and rarely result in criminal prosecution, in Le Pen’s case, the prosecution demanded the harshest penalty: four years in prison (two of them suspended), a €100,000 fine, and most importantly, a ban on running for office. This punishment takes effect immediately—despite the fact that the appeals process has not yet begun.
Source: Politico
This approach is both legally questionable and politically toxic. It undermines the core principle of fair justice: the presumption of innocence until a final judgment is rendered. In a democracy, it also violates the fundamental right of citizens to vote and to stand for election. A punishment imposed without a final ruling becomes a tool for excluding political opponents.
A direct question must be asked: on what legal basis does a court, before the judicial process is complete, revoke the political rights of one of the most popular candidates for the highest office in the country? According to recent polls, Le Pen could receive up to 37% of the vote in the first round—figures that are taken seriously even in authoritarian states. If the French judicial system believes it can ignore this level of public support, it is no longer a matter of judicial independence, but of political interference.
What is especially alarming is that even some of Le Pen’s opponents—such as Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin and Prime Minister François Bayrou—have expressed concerns about the court’s decision. They understand that this precedent is dangerous not only for the right but for all sides. Today it’s Marine Le Pen; tomorrow it could be someone on the left. In this logic, victory goes not to those who win majority support, but to those who remain beyond the reach of “broad interpretations of the law.”
Source: Politico
President Emmanuel Macron has so far remained silent. But silence is also a position. It allows him to keep his hands clean while enabling the system to eliminate threats before the campaign even begins. The threat posed by Le Pen is clear: no other candidate has her capacity to mobilize support. Her popularity is growing amid the failures of Macronism—from pension reform and the Yellow Vests movement to deepening social polarization. And as soon as the electorate found a viable alternative, the system did not offer a new political project—it simply decided to remove the candidate.
The geopolitical context should not be overlooked either. Marine Le Pen has long criticized France’s excessive dependence on Brussels, advocated for a reassessment of ties with Washington, and called for a more pragmatic approach to Russia and China. This stance contradicts the Élysée’s current course and has become unacceptable to the transnational political bloc into which France’s elite is increasingly integrated. While in the past such opposition was met with media campaigns and demonization, it is now being countered through criminal prosecution.
Comparisons with other countries come naturally. In Türkiye, Hungary, and Poland, the opposition has already faced similar forms of “judicial filtering.” But France has always sought to portray itself as a model European rule-of-law state. Turning the courts into a tool of political selection is a step toward destroying that image—and simultaneously toward an internal institutional crisis.
Despite a traditionally apathetic political climate, French society in recent years has shown an increasing willingness to respond to abuses of power. From strikes against pension reform to protests against police violence, citizens are beginning to realize that state institutions are more frequently acting against the people rather than in their name. The ruling against Le Pen is yet another warning: in a country where a court can strip an opposition leader of electoral rights before a trial concludes, it is no longer possible to speak of a full-fledged democracy.
Of course, Marine Le Pen is not a perfect politician. But this is not about her views. The issue is that she represents a genuine choice for millions of citizens. And that alone makes her dangerous to a system that increasingly replaces dialogue with monopoly over access. Today’s decision signals a shift away from political competition in favor of managed governance. From the standpoint of efficiency—perhaps. From the standpoint of democracy—a catastrophe.
Source: NBC News
Legally, the case is not over. Le Pen will appeal, and the ban may yet be overturned. But politically, the damage is done. The leading candidate has been sidelined. The public agenda has been replaced with criminal proceedings. Supporters are demoralized. The precedent has been set. The question now is: what comes next?
If the appeal lifts the ban, Le Pen may return to the race as a “persecuted leader”—a status that could boost her popularity even further. If not, her young successor, Jordan Bardella, will likely take the stage. But even then, Macron and his allies will face not just a new candidate, but a new electoral consensus: more and more French citizens will come to believe that elections in their country are no longer decided by society, but controlled by the system.
It was not Marine Le Pen who truly lost today. It was French democracy—where the fate of a future president is determined not by millions of ballots, but by a few signatures at the bottom of a court ruling.
Similar news
