In an illuminating discussion hosted by DiEM25, our co-founder Yanis Varoufakis was joined by award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Jacobin’s Europe editor David Broder, to examine the recent court ruling against Marine Le Pen and explore the broader implications of ‘lawfare’ – the strategic use of legal systems to sideline political opponents.

With Le Pen’s conviction for misusing EU funds and subsequent ban from France’s presidential race, this verdict has fuelled a significant debate about the intersection of justice and politics.

At the heart of the conversation was the fundamental question: Are we witnessing justice served, or are courts effectively replacing voters in democracies worldwide?

Varoufakis, Greenwald, and Broder provided a wealth of insights into this growing phenomenon where judicial actions are perceived as a tool to obstruct electoral competition, particularly against right-wing populists like Le Pen.

Greenwald began by highlighting the pattern of legal interference with popular candidates, suggesting that “lawfare” has been weaponised to deny the electorate their choice. He cited examples from Brazil, the United States, and Romania to illustrate how legal systems have been leveraged against candidates like Lula da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro.

“The only way a justice system can really have efficacy is if the public perceives it as apolitical,” Greenwald argued, warning against the dangers of such perceptions eroding democracy itself.

Varoufakis stressed the importance of maintaining political rights even for those deemed unsavoury by the establishment. He framed the left’s opposition not around Le Pen’s character, but on the principle that courts should not remove political rights.

“Political rights should never be rescinded…every radical Democrat should fight for this,” he stated, mindful of the historical instances where charges were used to undermine democracy.

David Broder offered a European perspective, arguing that this judicial intervention tone-defy crisis could inadvertently bolster Le Pen’s base. By presenting herself as a political victim, Le Pen has, according to Broder, managed to transform the narrative from one of crime to one of victimisation.

“The action of judges taking candidates off the ballot doesn’t empower voters,” Broder remarked, emphasising the potential for such actions to detract from substantial political debates, such as those about social welfare and economic policy.

The discussion concluded with a powerful reminder of the importance of preserving democratic processes and resisting the instrumentalisation of legal systems for political gain. It’s about ensuring that democracy is not just a procedural term but a principle deeply respected and actively upheld in political discourse.

As these discussions unfold, it’s clear that defending democracy necessitates vigilance against any attempt to subvert it, whether through blatant power grabs or more subtle legal manoeuvres.

DiEM25 urges progressives and active citizens to engage deeply with these issues, particularly in resisting mechanisms that could one day be turned against any political dissenting voice, left or right.

Watch the full discussion here

Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here