The harsh sentence handed down on Monday, March 31, against far-right leader Marine Le Pen for embezzlement of public funds had a revealing effect. It immediately lent unexpected weight to the notion of a "reactionary international" – a term used by President Emmanuel Macron in January to refer to a global alliance of populist right-wing forces united by opposition to liberal democracy and progressive values. From Moscow to Washington, via Budapest, expressions of sympathy toward the leader of the Rassemblement National party poured in, along with dire pronouncements on the state of French democracy.
The tendency to pit the "people" – whom this group claims to exclusively represent – against the supposed fiction of a "government of judges" is shared by all those who argue that the law should give way to the most controversial political agendas and electoral timelines, and that popularity should guarantee impunity. The trajectory of Donald Trump, who was reelected US president in November despite his active participation in challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election, facing multiple scandals and a a being convicted for violating campaign finance laws, can only give hope to populists entangled with the law.
Respect for the rule of law and the separation of powers is, in fact, at the heart of the divide running through what has long been conveniently referred to as the "Western camp." This camp was founded on a set of values that includes the principle of equality before the law. The magistrate who administers justice in the name of the people and now faces insults and threats for enforcing the rules passed by the legislative power has become more than ever the symbol of this significant challenge.
The warning in France from the Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature (CSM, High Council of the Judiciary) following the excessive reactions sparked by Monday's judgment echoed that of US Chief Justice John Roberts two weeks earlier. He was responding to a wave of attacks against federal judges when they opposed decrees issued by the new US administration. This coincidence can only be seen as confirmation of a troubling trend.
Respect for judged cases is one of the foundations of democracies. It does not prevent a decision from being challenged through the normal process of appeal. But attacking this cornerstone risks, unless it is the objective, endangering the entire structure – as philosopher Montesquieu famously stated: "To prevent the abuse of power, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power."
Attacking judges when they do not rule in his favor fits into Trump's pattern of behavior, which also leads him to repeatedly suggest a potential third term – prohibited by the Constitution – even if it may only be a tactic to delay an inevitable debate on his succession.
Attacks on judges, purges in administrations in the name of fighting the so-called "deep state," which is allegedly the counterpart of the "government of judges," blackmail through public subsidies, systematic intimidation... This path has already been taken elsewhere, and its endpoint is well known: illiberalism.
Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.