Current polls continue to show the Rassemblement National as the strongest political force. At the same time, the so-called “front républicain”—the willingness of various parties to unite against the RN in a runoff—appears to have weakened compared to previous presidential elections.

Image: Facebook/Marine Le Pen

With the appellate ruling against Marine Le Pen, France initially appears to have found a way out of a political deadlock. Following the decision, the leader of the Rassemblement National is once again permitted to run in the 2027 presidential election. However, the debate is far from over—on the contrary.

The ruling raises a fundamental question: Can a democracy claim to offer voters a free choice if a viable candidate is formally allowed to run, yet at the same time could be significantly restricted in conducting a campaign due to the enforcement of a criminal sentence?

Allowed to run – barred from campaigning?

Upon the appellate ruling, Marine Le Pen remains, in principle, eligible for election. At the same time, however, a prison sentence was upheld, part of which is to be served under electronic monitoring.

This creates an unusual situation: formally, nothing stands in the way of her candidacy. In practice, however, the question arises as to how a nationwide presidential campaign can be conducted if travel and public appearances depend on judicial restrictions.

This very constellation is now sparking debate far beyond France.

A difficult legal distinction

At the center of the proceedings is the use of European Parliament funds.

The prosecution argues that parliamentary assistants paid with EU funds were in fact working primarily for the national party organization.

The defense counters that, particularly in the case of Members of the European Parliament, European and national politics cannot be cleanly separated. Anyone engaged in European politics inevitably also works for the national party—and vice versa.

This distinction lies at the heart of the legal dispute.

Critics see this as a problematic gray area. Ultimately, judges must decide whether a specific political activity primarily served work in the European Parliament or the national party organization—a determination that inevitably leaves room for interpretation.

Parallels with Turkey?

International observers are now partly comparing the case with other proceedings against prominent opposition politicians.

Particular reference is made to the Turkish opposition politician Ekrem İmamoğlu. His university diploma was annulled decades upon graduation—a decision that significantly complicated his potential presidential candidacy and drew sharp international criticism.

While the two cases differ legally, they share a political similarity: in both instances, it is not solely the voters who determine the political future of a viable candidate; rather, courts or state institutions play a decisive preliminary role.

The Trump effect?

In the United States as well, legal proceedings have shown that they do not necessarily bring about the political end of a candidate.

Donald Trump faced multiple criminal cases during his campaign. Many of his supporters viewed these as politically motivated attacks. Instead of harming his campaign, numerous analysts argue that the proceedings strengthened the mobilization of his voter base.

Whether a similar effect could now occur in France remains uncertain.

If large segments of the French population come to believe that Le Pen is being treated excessively harshly or is politically targeted, this could give additional momentum to her party. Other voters, however, are likely to view the ruling as evidence that even prominent politicians must be held accountable for their handling of public funds.

The race for the Élysée Palace

As President Emmanuel Macron is constitutionally barred from running again, the field of candidates for 2027 is taking shape.

Key competitors include former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, left-wing politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as well as other potential candidates from liberal and conservative camps.

Current polls continue to show the Rassemblement National as the strongest political force. At the same time, the so-called “front républicain”—the willingness of various parties to unite against the RN in a runoff—appears to have weakened compared to previous presidential elections.

More than a legal case

The Marine Le Pen case has long become more than an ordinary criminal proceeding.

It touches on core questions of modern democracies: How independent must the judiciary be? What political consequences may criminal convictions of leading politicians entail? And where is the line between the rule of law and a de facto influence on democratic competition?

Regardless of how the proceedings continue before the Court of Cassation, the debate is likely to persist for a long time.

Because it is not only the ruling itself that will be remembered—yet also the question of whether, in the end, it was the voters or the courts that determined the shape of the presidential election campaign.

Okay Altinisik | 8-7-2026, 00:50:21