Zselyke Csaky / May 2025
Photo: Shutterstock
In recent months, several far-right politicians have been banned from political competition. The courts in Romania banned two extremist candidates from running in presidential elections. French courts sentenced far-right politician Marine Le Pen to four years in prison for corruption and handed her a five-year ban from standing for public office, effective immediately. The German domestic intelligence agency classified the far-right AfD party as “extremist,” paving the way for its potential ban in the future.
There are significant differences between the three cases. For one, Le Pen isn’t banned because of her political views – she was disqualified because French law bars politicians convicted of corruption from running for office. Second, Romania’s Calin Georgescu wasn’t just banned because of the danger his political ideas represented, but also because he had violated the electoral law, manipulated voters with the help of thousands of fake accounts, and faced charges on six criminal counts. And third, the AfD is not banned yet – and there is no agreement within the German public that a ban would be the best way forward.
But all three cases have a throughline. The exclusions are being enacted in the name of protecting democracy – whether that means improving the integrity of political competition or defending the system from abuse by antidemocratic forces.
Yet, despite their laudable goal, it is unclear if bans help or harm democracy in the long run.
Bans are not new. Democratic institutions have always been vulnerable to exploitation by their enemies: extremist forces can win elections using the freedoms granted by democracy and then abolish the very system that brought them to power. Many countries have therefore enshrined the idea of “militant democracy” in their legal systems – the ability to pre-emptively exclude antidemocratic actors from political competition.
But party bans are measures of last resort. They are enacted by independent courts, in cases where a political party poses an imminent threat to the democratic order. They are also relatively rare: between 1945 and 2015, a total of 32 bans took place in Europe.
Conversely, the disqualification of a politician for reasons unrelated to their politics – for example, a criminal offense – is much more common. In France alone, several politicians have been excluded from running, including two former prime ministers and, soon, potentially, a former president. Le Pen’s disqualification is not new or unique therefore. What is new in her case is the threat her party would pose to France’s democratic institutions and, irrespective of that, the significant political support she has.
So what is the problem with bans? While they can be perfectly legal, bans face significant criticism for the right, but also for the wrong, reasons.
Many claim that bans can strengthen the ideology that an extremist party or candidate represents. They may also allow politicians to portray themselves as “victims.” Critics additionally argue that extremist or populist leaders should be defeated at the ballot box or allowed to fail while in government, not disqualified. But this argument underestimates the damage they can do once elected. And it’s not like anti-system candidates need an excuse to attack the system – they already criticise the judiciary and the “elites” anyway.
Still, the biggest problem with bans – from the perspective of democracy – is that they may work best in cases where they are least needed.
It is easy to enact a ban in a country where people trust democratic institutions and where the majority view such processes as legitimate and fair. Bans can be much less effective – and indeed, breed resentment – in countries with dwindling trust and disillusioned voters, where far-right or antidemocratic forces have significant support.
And that is precisely what we are seeing in Romania and, increasingly, in France and Germany.
The main issue with bans, therefore, is that they don’t get to the root of the problem. In fact, as we have seen after the first round of Romania’s elections, they may just prolong the crisis. Following the ban of Georgescu (and another extremist politician, Diana Sosoaca), far-right AUR leader George Simion finished first in the repeat election, gaining an unprecedented 40 per cent. He is currently predicted to win the second round.
It is still possible that Romania’s Simion will be defeated, and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. But it’s more probable that he wins or that even if he loses, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back.
