Following French far-right leader Marine Le Pen's conviction of embezzlement and her sentencing to a five-year ban on running for office, effective immediately including during her appeal, her Rassemblement National party launched an attack on what it called the "tyranny" of judges. "The country is wavering on its principles and values," declared Le Pen on April 1. "Those who constantly speak of the rule of law are usually the first to seek to violate it."
Have magistrates illegitimately "interfered in the way elected officials conduct their mandates," as Le Pen claims? Is a ban on running for office with immediate effect in itself a "democratic scandal"? In a democracy, how can the respective boundaries of legitimacy between elected officials and judges be defined?
Pierre Rosanvallon, emeritus professor at the Collège de France, has long studied the intellectual history of French democracy. He published a trilogy on that topic, then one on the transformations of contemporary democracy. That was followed in 2020 by a book on the history, theory, and critique of populism: Le Siècle du populisme (The Populist Century: History, Theory, Critique). His latest book, Les Institutions invisibles ("Invisible institutions," 2024), analyzes the three "invisible institutions" of authority, trust, and legitimacy.
What is your view on the debates surrounding the decision of the Paris Criminal Court in the case of Marine Le Pen and her party embezzling European Parliament funds intended for parliamentary assistants?
You have 92.23% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.