Marine Le Pen should have had the dignity to stand down

Whether or not Marine Le Pen runs for president (with or without an electronic tag), her clash with the law raises some important political issues.

Last year, you will remember, she was convicted of misappropriating public European Parliament funds for party use.

Her conviction was upheld on appeal this year but her sentence was reduced, which allows her to stand for election in 2027. 

In simpler, earlier times, a politician found in serious breach of the law would withdraw from the race. She would have had the dignity to stand down.

But Marine Le Pen has learned a vital lesson in political success from Messrs Trump, Johnson et al: ambition is everything and, as long as you do not admit guilt or look ashamed, you can get away with almost anything in a democracy built on trust, toleration and widespread ignorance/naivety among the general public.

I doubt that Marine Le Pen feels the need to justify her decision, but pressure should be put on her by other politicians and the media to explain herself, not least so we know there is a train of logical thought in her head – a prerequisite for being president.

I imagine that if she were challenged she could respond with one or more of the following five arguments:

1) “The party may have done something wrong, and I may be the leader of the party, but I am not individually guilty.”

2) “The law has been used against me out of political motivations. The establishment has always been out to get me. They almost did this time, but not quite.”

3) “If I am guilty, then only as much as almost every other politician.” The idea that ‘they all have their fingers in the till in one way or another’ has become a trope of democracy which serves populists well since it lowers the ethical bar to zero.

If there is no good man or woman left standing, the voter can be excused for voting for whoever he or she chooses, without regard to their competence for high office.

4) “So what if some court found me guilty. In a democracy the people’s voice is more important than the law’s pedantry. The voters are more interested in my policies and if I get a mandate that will prove the court was wrong.”

5) “I know I railed against corrupt political opponents in the past and said that they should resign, but that was them and then. We are all inconsistent. Hypocrisy is not that big a deal, in fact a modicum is necessary for any politician.”

Opportunism

The trouble with all these hypothetical defences is that if we allow someone to override the rules and principles of democracy we have nothing left but opportunism and unscrupulousness, which will inevitably lead to an increasingly dysfunctional society.

Shame in politicians is an important mechanism by which we maintain a free and fair society built on equality and respect for the law.

We must insist that any person we deal with or who rules over us acknowledges the effect of his or her actions; distinguishes right from wrong; and accepts the consequences, however disagreeable.

Politicians are supposed to set an example to the rest of us – not to observe the constitution in name while undermining it in practice.

We know they are not perfect but we expect them to keep within an acceptable ‘zone of decency’, not go off the rails for selfish reasons.

Marine Le Pen would do a greater service to the France she says she loves if she acted as a bigger, nobler person and put personal ambition second to service to her country.

Ironically, a capacity for reflection and self-denial would prove she really is of presidential material.