If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.

For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.

In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?

As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did.

Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.

Does it though? One common thread in the comments here is whether ineligibility is or is not warranted in political embezzlement cases. If hers is justified, how is the lack of Chirac's justified? That he was not seeking to be elected?

Whether or not it's actually a politically motivated difference, it's not a stretch that people question whether it is. Because it's a very convenient sentence. And let's face it, she was very likely to make it to the second round of the presidential election, and I can totally see a number of people being extremely bothered that it was a possibility, because if it did happen, if she wouldn't have won, it would have been very close (although who knows, a miracle could happen, and the political field might be less of a mess in 2 years).

As stated in another reply, being sentenced to ineligibility for embezzlement is only possible since 2017.

It simply wasn’t a possible sentence in 2011. Note that this is not because it was considered too harsh. Ineligibility was systematic before 2010 as anyone condemned for embezzlement was automatically removed from voting lists for five years. However this was judged unconstitutional in 2010 (because it was automatic and sentences have to be individualised, ineligibility in itself is fully constitutional).

If Le Pen won, or if she would make to the second round is meaningless. The election would be tainted by having her running. That people are burthurt that their pet right wing populist became ineligible is of no substance. If anything it proves the courts are independent, and not acting to please a subset of the people.

Note also that the 2011 verdict was somewhat unusual because before 2010 when this was judged unconstitutional, Chirac condemnation would have led to him being removed from the voting list for five years and therefore de facto ineligible. Chirac was “lucky” to be sentenced during the seven years window when ineligibility wasn’t possible.

Ultimately, rules come from the people in a democracy.

If they decide they want a candidate who broke the rules, that's where it gets messy in political philosophy.

Should the democratic will of the people from years ago or decades ago override the democratic will of the people now? Of course that's the general idea of having constitutions and such, but it can only ever be a matter of degree, and there's no right answer as to how much.

Rules should be followed. If when rules are broken no punishment is applied, the rules are meaningless. Once rules become meaningless, everyone will be emboldened to break the rules, to the detriment of society as a whole.

If you want the rules changed, vote for them being changed, don't give free pass for any asshole to break them.

> Rules should be followed.

But free, democratic elections is a "rule" too -- not just a rule, but a bedrock principle.

Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate? Why should someone from the past be allowed to nullify my preferred vote in the present?

There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office. The question is whether it's outweighed by other democratic concerns. It's messy.

All elections follow rules set by a previous electorate unless you want to first vote on defining the rules for an election every time you have an election.

If Trump were to actually run for a 3rd term, would you argue that he should be able to because term limits were set in place by a previous electorate?

But there is definitely a serious philosophical argument that term limits are inherently undemocratic.

I personally think they're necessary, but at the same time I realize they are undemocratic. They're literally taking away the ability for an electorate to freely choose.

All I'm saying is, the tradeoffs get messy. Restricting candidates from running can be a slippery slope. Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running. How do you know when you've gone too far? Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then?

> term limits are inherently undemocratic

A society where the people are not able to participate in the electoral process is not a democratic society. True democracies represent the will of all people, regardless of whether they are part of the majority or whether they were eligible to vote in the single election which transitioned the political system from democracy to dictatorship.

The rules can be changed but again there are rules for how to do that! It's rules all the way down.

You can't have a functioning democratic system without rules.

The problems start when people start thinking that rules don't matter or aren't applied evenly.

Bold claim. Bold claims require bold evidence. You provided none.

> Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running.

Are you aware of the current situation in Turkey? If that's not bold evidence, I literally don't know what is.

If France failed to punish Le Pen, they would be takinya step into creating their own French Erdogan.

Are you really so sure?

Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?

Yes.

> Why was she the only one barred from running from office?

Because she was judged by an independent court and found guilty of embezzlement.

> Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?

I would have to read the decision to give this answer. Many things are considered when a judge gives out a sentence. Two murders may result in different prison length depending on circumstances, for example.

I'll just leave you with this considered analysis:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/04/01/why-marine-le-p...

Particularly:

> The crimes of which Ms Le Pen has been convicted are serious, but not of the same order. France’s harsh sentence in this case limits the choice of citizens who are capable of judging for themselves who should get their vote. By creating a mechanism that politicians might be thought to have co-opted, the law encourages talk of conspiracy—especially if, like Ms Le Pen, the barred politician belongs to a party that is founded upon a suspicion of the elites.

> The danger of courts aggressively sentencing politicians is that both the law and the courts become seen as partisan. Judiciaries rely on citizens accepting verdicts with which they disagree. Elections are supposed to generate consent for the incoming government. A poll after Ms Le Pen’s conviction found just 54% of French thought she was treated like any other accused, a narrow margin of confidence in judicial independence. Among RN voters, 89% thought she was singled out for political reasons.

That vote would be tainted by her embezzlement of campaign funds. The rest of this analysis is void once the author fails to consider how badly democracy can be damaged once election regulations are not respected.

Of course, the author may jave ulterior motives, and wants to defend Le Pen in this case because he wants to see democracy in Europe weakened from within. But I sm giving the benefit of doubt here and presuming stupidity rather than malice.

You, on the other hand, are presenting Marine Le Pen as a threat to democracy, presumably because you don't like the far right. But you're just one voter. Why not trust the electorate? Voters chose Giorgia Meloni and I don't see Italian democracy falling apart.

I'm not far right at all. I'm not even right. But I worry it's dangerous and will backfire to take choice away from an electorate because of some misuse of funds (that didn't benefit herself financially) that she is already being heavily punished for at a personal level. She's being punished. Voters shouldn't be by taking away their right to choose.

This is not up to voters to decide. If Le Pen murdered someone it wouldn't be up to voters for decide if the murder mattered.

Politicians don't have a separate legal system for them that allow voters to be judges. They are subject to the same intependent judiciary.

All the rest of your response falls apart after that.

Ironically Turkey is in this situation precisely because Erdogan removed term limits and spent decades consolidating his power. Same with China where Xi Jinping did the same. And Russia with Putin. All prime examples of functioning democracies, right?

These rules are specially to prevent people from setting themselves up as emperor for life and if they are removed that's almost always the exact thing that happens.

Democracy isn't a perfect system, as much as Americans tend to believe it is. It needs some guidelines to keep it functional. And even with them it's a compromise, not perfection.

Only when the rules are respected by everyone involved.

If we are playing football (or soccer for the barbarians across the pond), a core principle is to score goals. If in the middle of the game I punch you in the face, that principle stops mattering super fast.

> Why should people be prevented from voting now for someone because of previous rules made by a previous electorate?

Because that is how rules and regulations work. If you want them changed, change them properly, don't go breaking them because your pet right wing politician was punished for breaking them.

> There's always something inherently anti-democratic about preventing someone from running for office

I fundamentally disagree. The only thing anti-democratic is to allow someone that does not respect the democratic rules for running for office, for they will undermine democracy from within.

Surely you see the catch in this belief. If there is a group of people who can "allow" others to run for election then the system is not democratic at its core.

It is democratic at its core. Any democracy has an independent judicial system that can ensure that rules are being followed properly.

Separation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, does it ring a bell to you?

If the judiciary stops doing its job of banning those that would cheat elections, you wouldn't have a democracy anymore.

I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people. Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.

Then don't assume the judiciary is biased by following up with a disclaim that you are repeating baseless conjecture. Le Pen was judged with her right to legal defense, found guity, and punished accordingly. This is democracy working as it should.

> I enthusiastically endorse the separation of powers and firmly believe that people should follow systems, not people.

Based on the content of your posts, I sincerely doubt your enthusiastic endorsement.

You are very quick to make excuses for the right wing politician that was punished for embezzlement, claimed repeatedly that her being banned from office is undemocratic, and claimed without a shred of evidence that the court that judged her is biased.

Forgive me if I think you are bullshitting me here.

> Perhaps it just a global coincidence, but the recent spate of candidate disqualification (US, Romania, Turkey, France) gives the appearance of democratic decay.

Comparing France to Turkey is pure bad faith argumentation. If you genuinely think that Turkey and France share any sort of democratic decay you are very ill informed.

If Le Pen was not punished, I would agree France was taking a step in creating its own French Erdogan.

But if the people involved are not making up crimes, but prosecuting crimes; if they are not targeting people specifically, but enforcing the law that applies to everyone; and if they are allowing for the maximum possible due process, then there really isn't much of a case for that process being anti-democratic.

i’m curious, do you think age minimums are ok? i feel like with this opinion have to throw out all restrictions on the ability to run for office to be consistent.

That's entirely the wrong way to think about government. Government isn't about rules, it's about allocation of power. You have to think about government in terms of who is entrusted with power to make which decisions. If you entrust judges and lawyers to decide "when rules are broken" by elected officials, you give them power over those officials, and over voters.

Now that's okay to a degree, but the question is: where does the buck stop? If you design a system where the buck stops with lawyers and judges, then you've effectively given those lawyers and judges power to overrule voters. It's better to design a system where the lawyers and judges demur in situations like this, to avoid a "tail wagging the dog" situation where the legal system is invoked to resolve a political dispute.

What you are describing is the judiciary in any functioning democracy. Separation of powers requires an independent judiciary system.

They have to be unelected, so they keep their independence when evaluating if the laws are being applied according to the written law.

> Now that's okay to a degree, but the question is: where does the buck stop?

With proper separation of powers and an independent justice system, like the one that judged Le Pen and found her guilty.

I would only see thorniness is the courts refused to punish Le Pen out of fear of punishing a somewhat popular politician, as this would embolden others to act in ways to break the rules, and would undermine the independence of the court, which is a core tenet of a functioning democracy.

I think you only see thorniness here because you wanted Le Pen to keep doing her thing. See? it works both ways.

The way out of your conundrum is to admit there is no "the People"; there is a collection of diverging, often incoherent trends, and no voting system is perfect (no voting system is even logical, as proven by Condorcet and Arrow[0])

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/arrows-impossibility-th...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republ...

The fundamental democratic principle is the same.

And we measure the will of the people in elections, without having to worry about Arrow... it's procedural.

(2002 election, not 1995 - my bad)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_French_presidential_elect...

In English, more-or-less: > A society is democratic if it acknowledge that it is divided, which means that it contains contradictory interests, and if it creates modality to analyse and debate these contradictions so that we can reach arbitration, with each citizen having an equal share in the debate.

I don't believe that a society is democratic if a majority of the people have decided something that is harmful or unfair to a minority without properly having debated if this decision is fair or not for the minority.

Because of that, no, it's not "whatever the majority decides". In a democracy, the will to guarantee justice and fairness is more important than "the people", and if they say "there is suspicion of fraud from this candidate but let's just close our eyes because we like this person or because it is profitable for us", this is clearly a behavior where they are not trying to reach a just and fair situation.

This is what distinguish democracy from ochlocracy.

And I don't understand how people can really defend that we should ignore the justice/fairness condition: what is the point of following "the people" when these people are not trying to be just and fair? How will it be a good society?

Democracy doesn't require that, except for a narrow subset of rules relating to voting and things like that.

The system you're describing isn't even democracy--it elevates lawyers and judges above the voters. Think about it: if there was a class of people you could trust to neutrally administer and enforce "the rules" then you wouldn't need multiple branches of government, separation of powers, etc. You could just make rules for everything, and trust the neutral arbiters to enforce those rules in politically neutral ways.

> it should be easy to make that case to the electorate

It turns out if you have enough money for endless propaganda it is easy to make any case to the electorate. And who will be making the case anyway? The state cannot because it has to be inpartial in the elections; their opponents have a clear agenda (they want to be the president) so it's easy to dismiss their case. So that leaves no one with standing.

> If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.

If the result is that a convicted criminal will not be elected into the highest office of the state, that's not a worse outcome, that's a perfect outcome.

Let me try:

It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.

There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.

If you want to live in the world where we "trust the electorate" you first have to figure out how to make the electorate informed. In the meantime, I would gladly accept equally applied and adjudicated laws as a way to remove corrupt individuals from the electable population. A lot of places do this already, so making it so someone can't run for a given election cycle seems like a relatively small slap on the wrist compared to barring felons from ever being allowed to vote or hold office.

The marketplace of ideas as a primary political decision method was a dumb idea.

Politicians spending money they were given to do politics on politics isn't a definition of embezzlement anyone normal would use, and it didn't come up until the EU establishment saw a way to take down a politician they didn't like. It's basically a catch 22, the sort of rule-by-law that's common in dictatorships. Zero of her supporters are going to agree with this ruling as a consequence, as it is so clearly ideologically motivated.

No need for the scary quotation marks. This was plain embezzlement, as you very aptly described.

Especially where the rhetoric for dismantling that institution already took Europe in a very dark path a century ago.

Sorry, but you are representing the “a dark path”, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

And that is not what is happening. You can hold quite a lot of viewpoints, including opposing who is in charge. You just can't use EU funds to campaign for EU to be effectively abolished.

Imagine someone running for presidency in the US campaigning for it to disintegrate.

> Sorry, but you are representing the “a dark path”, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

Quite the opposite. EU fragments power so much that fucking Orban gets to block any initiative, even though Hungary is far from being one of the main countries in the block.

Also, very cute of you to cry authoritarianism when we are talking about Le Pen of all people, someone who holds very authoritarian views herself. Quite telling, whenever such a politician faces consequences of their bullshit, a lot of people come out of the woods to make excuses for them. Fuck that noise.

I agree that Marie Le Pen holds authoritarian views. When it comes to politicians this seems to be the rule rather than an exception. But that doesn’t make EU a particularly democratic organisation.

In my opinion, it is rare to find politicians who try to increase democracy.

Regarding your USA example, I believe it is only a nominally democratic state. I don’t think what they do over there is particularly good and should not be wused as a positive example.

I believe the best example of a functioning democracy is Switzerland.

I fundamentally disagree with that. It would be like using public funds to run for presidency in a country while campaigning for that country to cease to exist.

Note that they didn't forbid her to campaign on a platform that is against the EU - which I think they should - they only forbid her to use public EU funds to do so.

That you want to paint this as undemocratic is very bizarre.

> But that doesn’t make EU a particularly democratic organisation.

To the opposite, EU fragments power quite a lot. It is one of the main reasons why it is slow to act sometimes, many changes requires unanimous approval from all member countries (which is why Orban gets to veto any initiative while he is gurgling on Putin's balls).

> In my opinion, it is rare to find politicians who try to increase democracy.

I don't even know if we would agree what a perfectly functioning democracy even is.

You seem to think this is an absurd scenario - I don't know how to tell you this, but it's not. It's allowed in healthy democracies. To give just three contemporary European examples:

1. In the UK the Scottish National Party gets public money for being in Parliament, yet has the stated goal that the UK should cease to exist. SNP MPs aren't thrown in prison or banned from politics. That's because the UK is a democracy.

2. Flanders has independence parties that poll highly and take part in regular politics without being banned from Belgian politics.

3. MEPs themselves are frequently arch Euro-nationalists. They get public money and then campaign to effectively abolish the countries they represent, demanding their national governments be replaced by the EU institutions. This is of course not considered illegal.

Whilst there are regions that criminalize attempts to actually become independent (which they shouldn't), even they typically don't criminalize merely being in favor of it.

> Note that they didn't forbid her to campaign on a platform that is against the EU - which I think they should - they only forbid her to use public EU funds to do so.

She's been banned from politics entirely and given a prison sentence. That meets the threshold for something being forbidden.

It honestly sounds like you'd have been happy with all the other attempts to unite Europe under a single government that happened in the 20th century. Not only are you delighted by this clearly despotic move, you think it should be illegal to even be against the EU at all: a purist argument for the EU as totalitarian dictatorship. You should really think about whether that's the place you want to be, philosophically. Especially as frustration over the EU's undemocratic approach was the primary reason the UK left.

SNP is a very particular case in that Scotland is a country, and the UK is a country made up of countries.

Also, Scotland is not trying to abolish the UK, it would still be a United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northen Ireland.

> 2. 2. Flanders has independence parties that poll highly and take part in regular politics without being banned from Belgian politics.

Again, you are speaking of a portion of a country that desires independence. This is not the same as abolishing the country. Belgium would not cease to exist.

I could bring up movements that desire the separation of Catalonia and Basque Country in Spain too.

> 3. MEPs themselves are frequently arch Euro-nationalists. They get public money and then campaign to effectively abolish the countries they represent, demanding their national governments be replaced by the EU institutions. This is of course not considered illegal.

Replacing national institutions with more EU integration is not trying to abolish the existence of that country. You are extrapolating something there in a weird slippery slope.

> She's been banned from politics entirely and given a prison sentence. That meets the threshold for something being forbidden.

Perhaps she should not have engaged in embezzlement. Good that she was banished. It is important to respect the rules in place, else they become irrelevant and more politicians would feel emboldened to break them.

> It honestly sounds like you'd have been happy with all the other attempts to unite Europe under a single government that happened in the 20th century.

Nice way to try to paint me as a Nazi while you are crying about Le Pen of all people.

Protip, I am not the Nazi in this conversation.

> Not only are you delighted by this clearly despotic move, you think it should be illegal to even be against the EU at all: a purist argument for the EU as totalitarian dictatorship.

EU is far from being totalitarian, and far from being a dictatorship. If it was we wouldn't have to handle Orban being a pain in the ass for every initiative.

In fact, it is so democratic that things move slooooowly, because it needs a lot of consensus for things to move forward. It's a price I agree to pay, even if Orban is the cost for it.

> You should really think about whether that's the place you want to be, philosophically.

I am very much in favor of more EU integration, and I certainly vote for pro EU politiciand and parties for that matter. EU federalization should be the goal for me.

> Especially as frustration over the EU's undemocratic approach was the primary reason the UK left.

And that worked super well for the UK lol.

You are just trying to excuse a plain case of embezzlement by dressing up as authoritarianism. Good that a cheater such as Le Pen is removed from elections. If democracy allows cheaters to run, that is shortcut to disaster.

Were Le Pen able to win an election without embezzlement of EU funds, I would agree she is as popular as you claim.

> And to the people who call themselves "European citizens", I would say this: you can build a positive, shared European identity without the EU.

As someone that lives in an EU country, I fully disagree. Even the largest EU countries are relatively small for the world stage. Consider that Germany has the population of Chinese provinces.

EU is an absurdly positive to every country involved, to the point where I actively desire further integration. Federalization of Europe should be the goal, not less integration.

> The average rock concert does more for long term European integration than any EU regulation because the EU is not Europe and Europe is not the EU. The EU is a transient political arrangement, one that is by now actually working against true European integration.

And this is the point where I come to conclusion you are arguing in bad faith.

> The path it's on leads to ever harsher authoritarianism.

Funny you mention this when you are crying about Le Pen and fucking AfD.

Yeah, nothing authoritarian from those people. It is the EU that is truly authoritarian. Sure.

Fuck that noise.

If so, this seems crazy to me.

In other cases the same things have been done without fines, I think, e.g. the German Greens. Because their policies align with the Commission their campaigning in Germany isn't considered "embezzlement".

The basic issue the EU has is that the Parliament isn't actually a Parliament. It's not genuinely the legislative branch because it can't change the law, which is the dictionary definition of Parliament. As a consequence it fills up with anti EU parties put there as a protest vote. These parties then want to spend their time advocating against the EU back home which is embarrassing to the EU as there is no other so-called Parliament in the world with so many members who think it shouldn't exist. These kinds of legal actions were conventionally about that.

This one has gone further because it's a way for the left to continue locking down mass immigration policies. Although you will read that Le Pen is far right in reality she is a classical left wing socialist with the policies typical of such a person, she is just against the EU and its migration policies. It's a purely ideological action, hence the ankle bracelet.

You are absolutely delusional.

This is on the same ballpark of the argument some brain damaged people repeat that the NSDAP was leftist because it had "socialist" in the party name.