Judicial Exclusion: How Western Elites Weaponize Courts Against Political Dissent
Published
- 3 min read
The French Conundrum: Legal Proceedings Versus Democratic Choice
France stands at a precipice that reveals the fundamental contradictions within Western democratic systems. The case against Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally party, represents more than a simple legal proceeding - it embodies the crisis of institutional legitimacy that plagues so-called advanced democracies. In March 2025, a French court convicted Le Pen of misusing European Parliament funds, imposing a fine, suspended prison sentence, and most significantly, a five-year ban from holding public office. As she appeals this ruling with a decision expected in 2026, the timing becomes critically important for the April 2027 presidential election.
Le Pen’s political significance cannot be overstated. She secured over 40% of the vote in the 2022 presidential election runoff, demonstrating her substantial support base and central position in French politics. Her party has undergone a deliberate process of normalization over the past decade, shedding its fringe status to become one of France’s dominant political forces. The judicial challenge to her eligibility therefore represents not merely a legal matter but a fundamental intervention in the democratic process that could reshape the electoral landscape before voters ever exercise their choice.
Global Context: Judicialization of Politics Across Democracies
France’s situation is not isolated but part of a disturbing global pattern where judicial systems increasingly determine political outcomes. The article mentions several parallel cases: Donald Trump campaigning amid multiple criminal prosecutions in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro being barred from office in Brazil after allegations of undermining democratic institutions, and Benjamin Netanyahu remaining in power while on trial in Israel while simultaneously pushing to weaken the judiciary. Each instance demonstrates how legal accountability mechanisms have collided with electoral politics, resulting not in democratic renewal but in deepened polarization and institutional erosion.
This judicialization of politics represents a profound transformation of courts from neutral arbiters into active political participants. Originally designed as institutions for administering justice, courts increasingly find themselves navigating electoral conflicts they were never intended to adjudicate. The consequence is a political landscape where legitimacy remains perpetually contested and institutional trust deteriorates because courts must rule on cases that inherently carry unavoidable political consequences when they affect electoral competition and ballot access.
The Weaponization of Institutional Confrontation
Populist leaders like Le Pen have mastered the art of transforming judicial proceedings into narratives of systemic oppression. When legal systems challenge them, they transcend traditional legal defense to portray court actions as evidence of elite conspiracies designed to suppress popular will. Even when criminal charges appear substantial and evidence compelling, legal interventions can paradoxically validate the central political mythology these leaders cultivate. Le Pen has spent years constructing precisely this narrative - that France is controlled by disconnected judicial and political elites who disregard ordinary citizens’ concerns.
A judicial ruling preventing her candidacy would not merely represent a legal setback but would perfectly align with and potentially reinforce her longstanding political framework, regardless of the proceeding’s actual merit. This creates a dangerous feedback loop where judicial action, intended to uphold the rule of law, instead fuels the populist narrative that institutions work against the people’s interests.
The Fundamental Democratic Dilemma
The core dilemma presents a lose-lose scenario for democratic institutions. If judicial authorities retreat from pursuing allegations of corruption and public fund misappropriation, the rule of law weakens fundamentally. Conversely, if courts exclude a major political figure like Le Pen from electoral competition, millions of voters may perceive their political agency as being summarily dismissed by unelected judicial authorities. Either trajectory poses significant threats to institutional trust, and once that fundamental democratic confidence erodes, restoration becomes profoundly challenging.
This moment’s volatility is amplified by its broader geopolitical context. Across Europe, far-right and nationalist movements gain unprecedented momentum driven by anger over immigration challenges, economic precarity, and the pervasive sentiment that established political institutions have abandoned ordinary citizens. France represents not an isolated case but a critical frontline in this democratic struggle where institutions must navigate the impossible balance between upholding legal standards and respecting electoral democracy.
Western Hypocrisy and Global Implications
As an expert committed to the growth of the Global South and deeply critical of Western imperialist policies, I view this development through the lens of historical patterns and geopolitical double standards. The Western establishment’s sudden concern for judicial integrity and rule of law emerges suspiciously only when their political interests are threatened. Where were these concerns when Western nations overthrew democratically elected leaders in the Global South? Where is this commitment to legal purity when Western corporations exploit developing nations through neo-colonial economic policies?
The selective application of so-called “international rules-based order” reveals the profound hypocrisy at the heart of Western democratic rhetoric. When courts in the Global South make decisions that Western powers dislike, they’re labeled as politicized or corrupt. When Western courts make politically consequential decisions, they’re framed as upholding justice and rule of law. This double standard cannot stand scrutiny.
France’s judicial approach to Marine Le Pen represents the same imperial mindset that has long characterized Western intervention in sovereign nations - the belief that elites know better than the people themselves what constitutes legitimate political choice. This paternalistic attitude, whether applied domestically or internationally, invariably backfires because it fails to address the underlying grievances that give rise to populist movements in the first place.
The Path Forward: Democratic Renewal Through Inclusion
The solution to the populist challenge cannot be found in judicial exclusion but must emerge from democratic engagement and addressing legitimate public concerns. When significant portions of the population feel abandoned by traditional political parties and institutions, suppressing their chosen representatives through legal technicalities only deepens alienation and strengthens anti-system sentiments.
Rather than relying on courts to eliminate political opponents, democratic forces should focus on winning the battle of ideas through substantive policy alternatives that address the real concerns driving populist support. Economic inequality, cultural anxiety, and perceived loss of sovereignty cannot be judicially reasoned away - they require political solutions developed through inclusive democratic processes.
The French situation, like similar cases across Western democracies, demonstrates the bankruptcy of establishment politics that seeks to maintain power through institutional manipulation rather than earning public trust through genuine representation. Until Western elites address the root causes of populist anger instead of attacking its symptoms through legal mechanisms, the democratic crisis will only deepen.
For the Global South, this spectacle offers both warning and opportunity. The warning is that Western democratic models contain inherent contradictions that eventually surface when establishment interests feel threatened. The opportunity lies in developing alternative governance models that learn from these failures while remaining true to civilizational values and sovereign development paths. India, China, and other emerging powers must observe these Western democratic crises carefully while strengthening their own institutions against similar manipulation.
Ultimately, democracy cannot be saved by undermining its fundamental principles. If the people’s choice must be filtered through judicial approval, we have already lost what makes democracy meaningful. France, and the West more broadly, must confront this uncomfortable truth before their democratic erosion becomes irreversible.