A criminal conviction could initially strengthen Marine Le Pen’s political support before ultimately limiting her electoral prospects, according to Harvard political scientist Andrew O’Donohue, who says legal action against populist leaders presents democracies with a complex challenge. In an interview published by Die Zeit, O’Donohue discussed the implications of Le Pen’s conviction, drawing comparisons with political figures including Donald Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Hugo Chávez.
Le Pen was recently found guilty by a French appeals court of misusing European Union funds but has said she still intends to run in France’s next presidential election, even if she is required to campaign while wearing an electronic ankle monitor. According to O’Donohue, while such a scenario would be unprecedented in France, it is not unique internationally, as several political leaders have sought or won office despite facing criminal investigations or convictions.
O’Donohue, whose research focuses on the relationship between criminal accountability and democratic politics, describes what he calls the “accountability dilemma.” He argues that judicial action against political leaders can either reinforce democratic institutions or unintentionally undermine them. While prosecutions may discourage some moderate voters from supporting populist candidates, they can also deepen distrust of the judiciary among the leaders’ core supporters, weakening confidence in democratic norms such as accepting election outcomes.
According to O’Donohue, this dynamic does not mean democracies should avoid enforcing the rule of law. Instead, he says policymakers and institutions should recognize that criminal proceedings against figures such as Le Pen or Trump have limited electoral effects while also carrying risks of further political polarization.
In the interview with Die Zeit, O’Donohue says Le Pen’s conviction is likely to produce different reactions among different voter groups. He argues that the core supporters of the Rassemblement National are likely to view her as a victim of the political establishment, strengthening support during the first round of France’s two-round presidential election. However, he says success in the decisive second round depends on attracting moderate and undecided voters, who may be more likely to view a criminal conviction negatively.
For that reason, O’Donohue believes an electronic ankle monitor could initially benefit Le Pen by reinforcing claims of political persecution before becoming a disadvantage when broader electoral support is required.
The researcher also compares Le Pen’s situation with Donald Trump’s legal cases in the United States. Trump portrayed his criminal conviction in New York as evidence of a politically motivated campaign against him and used that narrative to raise substantial campaign funds. O’Donohue notes, however, that the French political environment appears different, with opinion polls suggesting that many voters continue to trust the judiciary and support the court’s decision against Le Pen while reacting negatively to attacks on the legal system by her party.
Polarization remains a central factor, according to O’Donohue’s research. He says voters become increasingly loyal to their political camps as societies grow more polarized, making them more willing to overlook actions that might otherwise raise concerns about democratic norms. Moderate voters therefore become particularly important in determining electoral outcomes. In France, he argues, Le Pen must expand beyond her traditional support base to win the presidency, while centrist candidates such as Édouard Philippe will compete for many of the same voters.
The interview also examines how courts in different countries have responded to political leaders accused of undermining democratic institutions. O’Donohue contrasts the United States, where courts moved cautiously in pursuing legal action against Trump following the January 6 Capitol attack, with Brazil, where judicial authorities acted more rapidly against former president Jair Bolsonaro after his alleged attempt to overturn the 2022 election result. According to O’Donohue, legal proceedings are more likely to succeed in protecting democratic institutions when they receive broad political and public support.
The discussion also addresses Germany’s debate over a possible ban on the Alternative for Germany (AfD). O’Donohue says international experience shows that party bans can produce different outcomes. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan successfully used the banning of one of his parties to strengthen his political appeal, European democracies have also demonstrated that legal measures can be effective when there is clear evidence that a political party threatens the constitutional order.
According to O’Donohue, such proceedings must be transparent, supported by strong evidence and clearly explained to the public to maintain confidence in democratic institutions. He adds that even when legal action removes a political figure from contention, it does not automatically eliminate the social or economic conditions that attracted voters to that movement in the first place.
Concluding the interview with Die Zeit, O’Donohue argues that opponents of convicted political candidates should avoid relying solely on legal or ethical arguments during election campaigns. Instead, he says voters are generally more concerned about everyday issues such as the cost of living and housing than criminal convictions, making effective policy proposals as important as defending the rule of law.
