To begin with the glaringly obvious. The author of these lines has absolutely nothing in common with Marine Le Pen, or the ideology or the movement for which she is the most visible head.
On the contrary. On the political spectrum, we stand at opposite extremes. That must be stated at the outset, so as to avoid any risk of confusion and misrepresentation.
However, I will also state from the outset something that ought to be blatantly obvious, but unfortunately seems to have escaped many people on the left.
I am told that the result of the recent trial of Marine Le Pen has been greeted with jubilation by the French Left. At one level, I can understand this. She represented policies that are anathema to them – understandably so. But on a deeper level, I consider that this jubilation is misplaced.
Let me explain in very simple language.The decision of a panel of French judges to sentence Madame Le Pen to imprisonment and, more particularly, to eliminate her as a candidate in the forthcoming presidential elections is a scandalous blow against even the most elementary conditions of a parliamentary democracy.
She was barred from standing in an election for five years, with immediate effect. The decision means that, unless she can get her sentence overturned before the 2027 presidential election, Le Pen is unlikely to be able to stand.
This is seen as a victory by many on the Left. But it is certainly not a victory for the working class and certainly not for the Left, and contains a very serious threat for the future.
I can anticipate in advance the reaction to my words. A howl of indignant protest will go up that, since Le Pen stands for ideas that are reactionary and repugnant, it was quite right to disqualify her.
My answer to this objection is very simple: Marine Le Pen was not put on trial for her ideas (at least, that is what is claimed) but for committing a criminal offence.
It may be asserted – and, in fact, is frequently asserted in the media – that this individual has been found guilty of a crime – namely, the embezzlement of a considerable amount of money from the funds of the European Union, which she apparently used, not for personal enrichment, but for the purpose of strengthening her own political party.
Surely, it goes without saying that any person convicted in a court of law of such a crime deserves to be punished?
Now, I have no means of knowing whether Madame Le Pen did in fact commit the aforementioned crime or not. But I am quite prepared to believe that she is, in fact, guilty as charged.
Does this justify the kind of draconic sentence that was dictated by the judge? In particular, does it justify the elimination from the forthcoming presidential elections of a candidate who has enjoyed a considerable support in the French electorate, currently leads the biggest party in the French parliament, and, until now, was widely believed to have the best chance of winning?
The popular support for Marine Le Pen is not seriously in doubt. On Sunday, an opinion poll predicted that Marine Le Pen would secure up to 37 percent of votes in the 2027 presidential election, more than 14 points more than in 2022 and 10 points ahead of any other candidate.
Let us put the case in plain language: does it seem acceptable that millions of French electors can be deprived of the most fundamental democratic right – the right to freely vote for their candidate of choice – to be effectively disenfranchised by the decision of a cabal of unelected judges?
That, and only that, is the question that must be answered.
The ‘majesty of the law’
There is no myth so assiduously cultivated – and so utterly mendacious – as the idea that the law is something impartial – something that stands above society and the interests of social classes. That is a lie. Throughout history, the law has always been a weapon used by the rich and powerful to defend their interests against the poor and oppressed.
Perhaps nowhere is this better understood than in France, where people have a healthy disrespect for most institutions, and bourgeois legality in particular. The celebrated French author Anatole France once wrote:
“The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.”
Judges have never been the friends of the working class, or, for that matter, of democracy. One could cite many cases to prove the extreme and scandalous partiality of the legal system in France – as in all other countries.
The reactionary nature of the French judiciary is demonstrated by history. It was highlighted by the notorious Dreyfus case – a political scandal that rocked France between 1894 and 1906 that split the nation into two opposing camps. Lenin expressed the view that it could have led to civil war.
Seven judges unanimously convicted Alfred Dreyfus – a French Jewish army officer – of collusion with a foreign power, to the maximum penalty under section 76 of the Criminal Code.
But later the entire case against Dreyfus was found to be based on a forgery. The affair highlighted antisemitism in the French ruling class and the tops of the army, and the rottenness of the judicial system.
There is nothing in subsequent French history that shows that things have changed in any fundamental manner. It is sufficient to point to the collaboration of French judges with the pro-Nazi Vichy regime during the Second World War to make this point crystal clear.
Yet now, for some obscure reason, French judges are portrayed as courageous upholders of democracy. It is sufficient to look at the historical record to see the falsity and hypocrisy behind this absurd notion.
The law systematically upholds the status quo – that is to say, the interests of the bankers, landlords and capitalists. If that means driving a horse and carriage through the law itself, then so be it.
Despite all this, Fabien Roussel, the leader of the French ‘Communist’ Party can say things like the following:
“Justice is justice. Depending on whether you are powerful or weak, as La Fontaine wrote, it must be the same for everyone. Especially since Marine Le Pen is a political leader who demands more firmness from the justice system! Let us respect justice, then.”
By all means, let us respect justice. But justice is not at all equivalent to the existing legal system in France. His quotation from La Fontaine is misleading. It is abstract and lacks any real content. Instead of dealing with the law as it really is, he deals with it as it ought to be. Far better to quote the words of the philosopher Anacharsis: “The law is like a spider’s web. The small are caught, and the great tear it up.” These words convey the reality of the law, not as it ought to be, but as it really is in class society.
Let us examine for a moment the record of the law in combating corruption in French politics.
Corruption in French politics
It is widely understood in France that corruption in French politics is not only widespread – it is something in the nature of a national sport.
If Marine Le Pen was guilty of it, she was in excellent company. Former president Nicolas Sarkozy was put on trial for allegedly taking illegal campaign contributions from Libya.
François Fillon, right-wing former prime minister, lost his lead ahead of the May 2017 presidential election when police placed him under official investigation in March of that year for employing his wife in a fake job as a parliamentary assistant. His support plummeted. Macron took the Élysée Palace.
But the most scandalous case of misuse of the legal system in defence of bourgeois politicians was the case of the former French president Jacques Chirac who was found guilty of “embezzling public funds” to illegally finance the conservative party he led and also for “abusing public trust”.
This embezzling took place whilst he was mayor of Paris between 1977 and 1995. He was accused of paying members of his Rally for the Republic (RPR) party for municipal jobs that did not exist.
This seems like a far worse crime than Le Pen, given that she was apparently channelling money to pay for jobs that actually did exist.
However, Chirac was only convicted in 2011 and so – very conveniently – he was able to stand for election and win the presidency between 1995 and 2007, when he stood against Jean-Marie Le Pen, father of Marine Le Pen.
In other words, he was allowed to run for and to be the President after he embezzled funds.
According to what I have read, he enjoyed immunity from prosecution during his tenure as President, so it could well mean that they had the evidence, but didn’t prosecute until well after he was in power.
In 2004, during Chirac’s presidency Alain Juppé was convicted in the same case.
He was sentenced to an 18-month suspended jail sentence, the deprivation of civic rights for five years, and the deprivation of the right to stand for political office for 10 years.
However, after he appealed the decision, his disqualification from holding elected office was reduced to one year.
These cases of corruption are only the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg. Mostly, they are never prosecuted. But when they are, as the above cases show, the judiciary can be easily manipulated to mitigate the sentences, or to annul them altogether. This is the real meaning of French ‘justice’.
This phenomenon, needless to say, is not at all confined to France. The leaders of the European Union are without doubt celebrating with champagne the conviction of Marine Le Pen. But corruption flourishes in Brussels just as much as in Paris – in fact, a damn sight more so.
Yanis Varoufakis, who is very well acquainted with the inner workings of the European ruling clique, has pointed out that Christine Lagarde was convicted for similar charges in 2016, also in a French court.
However, she kept her job as head of the IMF and has since become President of the European Central Bank.
He added acidly: “Nobody has made a peep about [her previous conviction]… I have zero trust in the capacity of the judiciary to act as a judiciary, in France and more broadly.”
Rage against the judges
News of the trial has predictably sparked off a wave of anger among the supporters of Le Pen.
An article in the Financial Times on Wednesday reported a wave of threats of violence against the judges involved in the case:
“Critics say the party and Le Pen herself are playing with fire because their criticism of the justice system amounts to a challenge to the rule of law and the legitimacy of the courts to apply laws promulgated by parliament. The judges presiding over the case have received serious threats, according to the justice ministry. Police patrolled the home in Paris of the chief judge immediately after the verdict.
“Rémy Heitz, the chief prosecutor at France’s highest court of appeal, said such threats were grave, and he defended the court. ‘The decision is not political, it’s a legal ruling rendered by three independent and impartial judges,’ he said. ‘The threats against judges are totally inadmissible in a democracy.’”
But for many people, it is very clear that this trial was very far from “independent and impartial” and the fury directed against the judges merely reflects that fact.
Cowardice of the ‘Left’
The reaction of the French political leaders could have been predicted in advance. Prime Minister François Bayrou told the National Assembly on Tuesday that it was not true that the judiciary was undermining French democracy.
But, evidently embarrassed, he felt obliged to add that “as a citizen” he questioned whether immediate bans from standing for elections before appeals were exhausted were appropriate. He added that he felt “troubled” by it.
These final remarks provoked an indignant response from Olivier Faure, First Secretary of the Socialist Party, who rushed to the defence of the legal establishment, issuing a quick rebuke:
“…obviously respect for the law, the rule of law, the separation of powers, are no longer on the government’s agenda.”
Former SP leader, François Hollande added that Bayrou “has no reason to be troubled, when you are Prime Minister in a Republic and you are the guardian of the law, you must accept that the courts can be guaranteed their independence.”
Bayrou’s remarks are clearly motivated by self interest, since both he and his party are facing a second trial on a fake contracts case similar to Le Pen’s, after prosecutors appealed against the first verdict.
However, he decided that, since discretion is the better part of valour, it is best not to press the point to hard, so he adds: “The law under which the judges made their decision was passed by parliament. . . It is parliament that will decide whether or not that law should be amended.”
Leader of the Greens, Marine Tondelier enthusiastically joined the chorus of denunciation, saying Le Pen is a “defendant like any other”. “When we give lessons in exemplary behaviour to everyone, we must start by applying it to ourselves…”
In Britain, the Morning Star (1/4/25) avoided the issue altogether, simply limiting itself to a bare statement of the facts:
“The far-right leader was also given a four-year prison sentence, with two to be served under house arrest and two suspended — which would not apply pending appeal.
“Ms Le Pen said the court should not have made her ineligible to run for office until all her chances at appeal had been exhausted, and that by doing so it was clear the court was aiming ‘specifically to prevent’ her from being elected president.
“French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, who only survived a confidence vote moved by left-wing parties in February thanks to the National Rally, also criticised the immediate ban on Ms Le Pen standing.
“Left-wing France Unbowed says it never expected to defeat the National Rally through the courts and will ‘fight it at the ballot box and in the streets.’
“An opinion poll by BFMTV on Monday showed 57 per cent of French people believe that justice was served in the case without any political bias.”
We do not know what credence can be placed on the above-mentioned polls. What we do know is that the Morning Star, which is supposed to stand for democracy and socialism, has not clearly expressed an opinion concerning the case of Marine Le Pen.
This is typical of the cowardice of the left and its failure to stand consistently for democratic rights and fight against the bourgeois state and its institutions.
The position taken by the leader of La France Insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon compares favourably with the wretched spectacle of cowardice and complicity of all the other left leaders.
France Insoumise’s official statement said that it “notes that the facts which have been declared proven are particularly serious [and] entirely contradict the slogan ‘heads high, hands clean’ on which this party has long sought to prosper.”
It added: “We take note of this court decision, even if we refuse on principle to accept that it should be impossible for anyone to appeal. As for the rest, La France Insoumise’s means of action has never been to use a court to get rid of the Rassemblement National”
Mélenchon has emphasised that “the decision to remove a politician from office should be decided by the people.” That is good, as far as it goes. But it still falls far short of the kind of outright condemnation of an antidemocratic manoeuvre that one expects from someone who claims to represent the Left.
By refusing to combat the antidemocratic intrigues of the liberal bourgeois establishment, and – far worse – by fostering illusions in the credentials of the legal system, the reformist leaders are handing the ruling class a loaded pistol, which tomorrow will be pointed at their head.
That point was forcibly made by Yanis Varoufakis who commented:
“The Romanian case was the dress rehearsal. Now, they’ve moved on to Le Pen. Tomorrow, they’ll go after Jean-Luc Mélenchon.”
This goes to the very heart of the matter.
How the ‘democrats’ are destroying democracy
Commenting on affairs in France, Donald Trump said: “This is a very big deal.”
He drew a parallel between Le Pen’s ban and the series of legal cases against him, most of which were abandoned upon his re-election. “That sounds like this country. It sounds very much like this country.”
He clearly draws a parallel with the incredible campaign waged by the establishment and the media to prevent him from standing in the presidential elections. The courts were extensively used in order to attempt to get him sent to prison, in order to block him as a candidate.
The media raised a noisy chorus, protesting that the American people would never vote for a ‘convicted felon’ in the presidential elections. But the result of those elections proved conclusively that millions of people no longer believe the prostitute media. Donald Trump won a resounding victory.
Terrified at the prospect of a repetition in Europe, steps were taken to prevent the election of an anti-establishment candidate in Romania, by the simple device of cancelling an election that he had already won. This unprecedented action was carried out by the constitutional court, basing itself on flimsy suspicions of Romanian intelligence and pressure from its neighbours.
The populist politician, Călin Georgescu, who came from nowhere to win the first round of last year’s presidential election was stopped in traffic in the capital, Bucharest, on his way to register as a candidate for new elections in May. Prosecutors said one of the charges involved attempted “incitement to actions against the constitutional order”.
He has since been been disqualified from standing in the forthcoming May election for which he was the frontrunner with 40 percent of the vote.
This was presented allegedly as a necessary measure in order to “protect democracy”!
Similar events have taken place in Turkey, where tens of thousands of protesters came out on the streets to demonstrate against the arrest of the main rival to the country’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,
Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul, was due to be selected as the Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) 2028 presidential nominee in a vote on Sunday 23 March. Earlier that day he was formally arrested and charged with corruption.
İmamoğlu said the allegations against him are politically motivated. “I will never bow,” he wrote on X before he was remanded in custody.
The actions of the Turkish government have been widely condemned by the press and the rest of Europe. But the same ‘liberal’ press has remained silent over events in Romania, and has expressed no criticism of the treatment of Marine Le Pen.
So there we are. The real position of the ruling bourgeois liberal elite is as follows: we support elections, but only on condition that the candidate that is elected is one that we support!
Angry mood
In recent decades, the working class has been subjected to a series of brutal attacks against their standard of life, rights and liberties. Trade unions have themselves increasingly been subjected to punitive anti-trade union laws. The right to strike is increasingly restricted. The right to demonstrate in public places is subject to vicious police repression.
The whole nature of bourgeois formal democracy has become more and more exposed as a fraud and a deception of the people. But until recently, it was widely believed that it was possible to change the system by peaceful democratic means, by voting in elections.
Now, even that right is coming under threat. What is taking place in Romania, Turkey, the USA, and what is now taking place in France, is a warning to the labour movement.
If we accept for a moment that the establishment has the right to decide who is a suitable candidate to stand in the election, and who is not, the very idea of free elections becomes reduced to a mere fiction.
The fact that the so-called liberal media remain silent about these abuses (which, of course, they would not be if these things occurred in Russia!) exposes the obvious fact that for the liberals, democracy is not at all some kind of sacred principle, but only a means to an end – a convenient fiction.
This fiction serves to disguise the reality that society is owned and controlled by a tiny clique of bankers, landlords and capitalists, and the parliaments and law courts are merely playthings in their hands.
But it is a fiction that is only useful to the extent that many people still believe it. The general mood of anger, frustration and discontent that exists now in all countries is a reflection of a profound and insoluble crisis of the capitalist system.
Intensification of the class struggle
This angry mood expresses itself in politics in violent swings on the electoral plane to the right and to the left. To the horror of the bourgeoisie, the political centre is collapsing everywhere.
And the intensification of the polarisation between left and right is merely an expression of the intensification of the class antagonisms – the hatred of the rich and powerful who dominate our lives and decide everything.
This hatred of the establishment can express itself in different ways. If there was a genuine Left that stood solidly in defence of the interests of the working class and against the power of capital, the problem could be easily resolved.
But to the degree that the leaders of all the main parties that claim to be left have disappointed their supporters, the road is open inevitably to all kinds of demagogues of the type of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen.
The liberal establishment lives in constant terror of this polarisation. They are straining every resource in a desperate attempt to shore up the disintegrating centre. But all their attempts will be in vain.
The political pendulum will continue to swing violently to the right and to the left. One party leader after another will be put to the test and discarded. We see that clearly in Britain now with the collapse of support for Starmer.
And no amount of tricks, manoeuvres and intrigues, no amount of legal chicanery will halt an historic process which is being prepared by forces that are far more powerful than any court of law, army or police force.
Lenin used to say: life teaches. Through their experience, the workers will learn. It will not be an easy or quick process. There will be many ups and downs. Many defeats and reverses. But the lessons will be learned and the conclusions will eventually be drawn.
In the final analysis, the working class, once it is organised and mobilised behind the banner of socialist revolution, is a force that no power on earth can defeat.
