The illusion of justice in childhood
As a child, you learn that good triumphs over evil. Superheroes like Batman and the Avengers fight villains, and justice always prevails. The bad guys go to prison, and the world is set right again. But reality is far more ambiguous. What happens when holding someone accountable doesn’t weaken them, but instead makes them stronger?
Le Pen and the populist backlash
Marine Le Pen’s disqualification from the French presidential race this week was intended as a moment of accountability—justice prevailing over alleged corruption. Yet, rather than ending her political career, it has become a rallying cry. She and her supporters claim this is proof of a rigged system, reinforcing the populist belief that the establishment will stop at nothing to silence its opponents. With Jordan Bardella, the favourite to replace Le Pen as National Rally candidate, stating “Everything will be done to prevent us from coming to power,” he dismisses the case as a partisan issue, further fuelling populist sentiment.
This is the paradox of justice in the age of populism. When legal systems act against controversial leaders, the outcome is often unpredictable. Rather than diminishing their influence, legal battles can strengthen their appeal.
Trump: a case study in political resilience
Donald Trump offers the most glaring example. Facing 91 criminal charges across four separate indictments—including election interference, fraud, and hush money payments—each should, in theory, have weakened his political standing. Instead, his support has grown.
Before his first indictment in March 2023, Trump was polling at around 41% in the Republican primary. By October 2023, that number had surged to nearly 60%, solidifying his dominance in the race. His courtroom appearances have become campaign events, feeding his narrative of persecution and deepening the loyalty of his base. Once a pillar of scrutiny, justice has instead become his greatest weapon.
Lessons from history: when justice backfires
History echoes this pattern. Adolf Hitler’s failed 1923 coup should have marked his downfall, but his brief imprisonment only elevated his status and gave him the platform to write Mein Kampf. His release saw him rebrand himself as a populist voice of the German people, leading to his eventual consolidation of power.
In South America, leaders like Juan Perón in Argentina and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela used legal challenges to cast themselves as champions of the people. Perón was briefly ousted in 1945 but returned stronger, using his brief imprisonment to solidify his image as a man of the working class. Chávez, despite multiple attempts to remove him, managed to maintain control for over a decade, claiming every legal battle was part of an imperialist plot against him.
Again and again, attempts to hold populist leaders accountable have been reframed as proof of establishment conspiracy, making them appear even more appealing in the eyes of their supporters.
The dilemma: justice or public will?
What then is the right course of action? Should the legal system press forward, even at the risk of feeding these leaders’ narratives? Or should democracy rely on the electorate to decide, even when that means overlooking clear violations of the law?
On the one hand, abandoning legal action would set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that those with enough political support are above the law. On the other, each legal challenge risks further solidifying these figures as martyrs in the eyes of their followers, strengthening their movements rather than weakening them.
The fragility of democracy
There is no easy answer. Democracy depends on institutions that uphold justice, but it also relies on public trust in those institutions. When legal action is perceived as politically motivated, it risks undermining that trust rather than reinforcing it. Yet abandoning justice for fear of political consequences is equally dangerous.
Perhaps the real challenge is not just in prosecuting leaders who break the law, but in ensuring that legal systems remain independent and trusted enough that their decisions cannot be so easily weaponised. Without that trust, even the most justified actions risk backfiring – turning villains into heroes and casting justice as tyrannical.
One possible alternative is a greater focus on public transparency. Rather than allowing populists to control the narrative, judicial systems must do more to communicate why legal action is taken, ensuring that justice is seen as impartial rather than selective.
The task, then, is to uphold the rule of law while ensuring that justice does not become a tool that strengthens those who seek to dismantle democracy itself. But as history shows, that balance is incredibly difficult to maintain.
