The EU's Democratic Crisis
The European establishment will intensify its authoritarian turn to compensate for its policy weaknesses.
On 31 March, a French court banned Rassemblement Nationale (RN) leader Marine Le Pen from public office for five years. Very unusually, this part of the sentence is effective immediately regardless of appeal. The court also sentenced Le Pen to four years in jail, of which two were to be under house arrest, and two suspended, and a EUR100k fine.
Prosecutors had alleged that EUR4.1 million allocated to the RN for affairs related to the European Parliament were used instead for work on party matters. Having parliamentary staff do political work is both, in theory, illegal, but, in practice, the norm. There was no allegation that Ms Le Pen benefited personally.
The political life ban is intended to prevent Le Pen from contesting the 2027 election, while the house arrest is intended to prevent her campaigning for her party. This suggests that the sentence is politically motivated.
Wider context
This follows a decision by Romanian courts to ban winning candidate Călin Georgescu from running in a fresh election, having annulled the previous one. It also follows statements by German politicians calling for banning the AfD, which came second place in the German elections, and the banning of a Moldovan party seen as too close to Russia. It also fits in a wider pattern, of the EU trying to weaken Hungary’s nationalist leader Viktor Orban, of Brazil banning Bolsonaro from running, and of American courts attempting to cripple Donald Trump’s campaign through lawfare.
This forms part of a conflict between nationalist populist leaders and the existing establishment. It is increasingly evident that the establishment has run out of ideas and is unable to command legitimacy through elections. It is therefore resorting to other means to maintain power.
From the perspective of the nationalists, the existing leadership has failed on every metric. It is unable to define and protect a national identity, generate economic growth, or provide internal or external security. From the perspective of the establishment, the nationalists are evil and reckless, and must be kept from holding power. And if they do hold on, as Trump did, it is necessary to obstruct their exercise of it, using every legal and illegal-but-deniable means available.
Wars on the right
Throughout the West, the nationalist right is split into two camps.
There are the older civic nationalists, such as Britain’s Nigel Farage, Germany’s AfD, and France’s Marine Le Pen. These believe that anyone of any background can adopt the culture of their host country, and are open to the idea of an Indian Britisher or a Congolese German. Indeed, Ms Le Pen called on the AfD to reject calls for “remigration”, that is, the repatriation of migrants to their countries of origin. Mr Farage broke with one of his five MPs ostensibly because said MP wanted mass deportations of illegal migrants.
There are also the much smaller, younger, and more creative ethnonationalists, including the AfD’s disbanded youth wing. These view culture as important, but as no substitute for ethnicity, and believe that Europe should remain overwhelmingly ethnically European. Their view, summarised, is that a cat born in a stable is still a cat.
The failure of the older civic nationalists to challenge the establishment, and the establishment’s intolerance towards civic nationalists, risks convincing the youth that the older generation’s measured approach is pointless. By calling Farage far-right, by calling the AfD - led by a lesbian whose partner is Sri Lankan - far right, and by banning Ms Le Pen, the result is going to be a hardening of the right, and a greater shift towards ethnonationalism.
Historically and geographically, ethnonationalism is a universal human norm - people naturally prefer their own to strangers. It is the West that is the exception, and, by obstructing and preventing debate and hollowing out elections, the European establishment is ensuring that ethnonationalists will win in the long run.
Implications
The Western liberal leftist establishment has become sufficiently extreme to take measures that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. We see no difference between what Erdogan is doing, what the Biden administration tried to do to Trump, and what the French and Romanians are doing.
This dynamic reflects the unwillingness of the establishment to acknowledge that it has failed on every level: its energy policy has weakened its industry and impoverished its population; its migration policy has overburdened a fragile welfare state and created deep internal divisions; its war defence policy has been catastrophic. We discuss the problems Germany faces in the piece below, but these apply equally to most other Western European countries.
The tendency is for the use of measures such as banning candidates and parties to accelerate after they are first introduced, until a breaking point is reached. We expect more instances of opposition candidates and parties being barred, not less.
This is coming at a time when the US sees Europe as a burden and as a nuisance province of its empire. The Americans now believe, rightly or wrongly, that abandoning NATO to partner with Russia can deliver Europe more effectively than maintaining NATO.
This is also coming at a time when the apparatus for regime change that the American establishment controlled is shifting hands, from the old liberal left elite to the Trumpian right.
For Europe, the consequences of restricting elections in this manner and of antagonising the Americans will include more instability, a greater risk of unrest, and greater economic turmoil.
Hollowing out elections while failing to deliver to the public and continuing with unprecedented levels of migration will convince at least some that violence is needed.
Indeed, it was precisely this dynamic - targeting moderate opponents mercilessly while failing to deliver expected services and economic advancement - that helped convince the Syrians that radical jihadism was better than the status quo.
For France, if Le Pen’s appeals fail, her party will likely select a younger, more appealing, and more right wing candidate. Recall that her party is the largest bloc in Parliament right now, and that the mainstream left and the centre are both intellectually bankrupt. They have nothing to offer.
This process of lawfare helped radicalise President Trump, and led to his second term being far more aggressive and determined than his first.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Modad Geopolitics to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.