The following is an adapted version of an article written by Réka Csepeli, a research fellow at the Europe Strategy Institute of the University of Public Service, originally published in Hungarian on the Five Minutes Europe blog of Ludovika.hu.
After political regime changes and major social upheavals, there is always an insatiable desire among the masses for radical accountability. Furthermore, the new government, through such radical and spectacular steps, even through promised ‘show trials’, seeks to establish its legitimacy, emphasize radical change, and fulfil its promises to its voters.
History has proven countless times that the closure of the past is never free from violent emotions. To support this, we do not even need to go back to the Great French Revolution. The post-war People’s Court trials after 1945 or the debates over justice following the 1990s all prove this.
The measures of the Tisza government that emerged from the elections on 12 April 2026, along with the social mood, have once again brought to the surface the issue of settling accounts with the main actors of the previous system and the shadow court that served them, and the necessary accountability for this. At the same time, they have whipped up deep-rooted, often irrational human instincts that have emerged in an even stronger form as a result of the frustration and moral outrage suffered over the past decades. The line between a rational desire for justice and an emotionally based demand for revenge is extremely narrow.
‘The line between a rational desire for justice and an emotionally based demand for revenge is extremely narrow’
However, the issue of holding politicians accountable does not only come to the fore during periods of regime change. In recent times, lawsuits have been initiated and are ongoing against several former or even currently serving politicians across Europe. In light of the current political climate and public sentiment in our country, we will briefly examine this topic below by presenting some international examples.
Democratic Principles
The examples given below refer exclusively to legal proceedings conducted within the framework of democratic systems. In accordance with checks and balances as a basic democratic condition, the separation of powers is intended to guarantee the independence of the judiciary to the maximum extent.
However, in the recent cases against several former or even currently active political figures, this judicial independence has been attacked by numerous analysts and politicians, primarily because judges are citizens with voting rights and political opinions, and their political sympathies are inseparable from their decisions. All democratic systems must ensure the maximum guarantee of legal clarity and objectivity of proceedings. In this way, questioning the principle of separation of powers is a serious accusation.
Setting an Example
A new political regime also seeks to secure its position by holding the previous regime accountable, thereby presenting itself as more democratic and as a true defender of democratic values. Coming to terms with the past also has a psychological dimension: satisfying the public’s desire for justice is, naturally, one of the new government’s first tasks and, at the same time, one of its most visible measures.
A distant example perhaps best illustrates this effort. In South Korea, it is not only not uncommon but almost systematic for the leader of the previous regime to be brought to justice, even imprisoned, in spectacular legal proceedings.
In February of this year, former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of plotting an uprising when he declared martial law in 2024, plunging the country into a constitutional crisis. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty for the 65-year-old former president (the country has a death penalty, but no one has been executed since 1997 due to a moratorium). It was the most significant criminal trial in South Korea since former military dictator Chun Doo-hwan was sentenced to death on the same charge nearly 30 years ago. But the same thing happened to the country’s first female leader, President Park Geun-hye, who was removed from power in 2017 on corruption charges and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Tension in the European Union
On 19 May the European Parliament voted to uphold the immunity of German MEP Angelika Niebler, thus temporarily blocking the investigation launched by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) into suspected fraud involving parliamentary funds. The decision, adopted by secret ballot and by a narrow majority, creates significant institutional tension between Parliament and the EPPO: how far should the protection of the parliamentary mandate extend, and where does the obligation to authorize an investigation into suspicions of the use of EU funds begin?
The Niebler case has brought this tension to the forefront of European politics. Parliament claims that it was merely following procedure. The EPPO claims that the procedure created a situation that hindered the investigation. Both claims can be true at the same time.
The case is therefore no longer simply about a German MEP or a decision on immunity. It is about the relationship between the European Parliament and the European institution set up to investigate fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests.
Lawsuits and Court Rulings in France
The EU news reported above has sparked particular interest among the French. Indeed, some believe they see a connection to the verdict handed down by the Paris Criminal Court on 31 March 2025—just over a year ago—against Marine Le Pen and eight of her party colleagues.
At that time, the charges were based on the embezzlement of approximately 4.1 million euros in EU public funds, which the National Rally’s predecessor party, the National Front, had illegally used to finance its own party between 2004 and 2016. According to last year’s first-instance judgment, the leader of the National Rally and head of its parliamentary group was sentenced to four years in prison and a fine of 100,000 euros.
However, the real stakes may lie in the second part of the verdict, which bars Marine Le Pen from public office for five years, effective immediately. This could potentially prevent France’s currently most popular politician from running in the 2027 presidential election. Understandably, the French public is eagerly awaiting to see what role Marine Le Pen will play in the race for the Élysée Palace, depending on the verdict the Paris Court of Appeal delivers on 7 July in the case involving the National Front’s European Parliament assistants.
‘Legal proceedings and convictions against politicians who enjoy the trust of their fellow citizens…are of the utmost importance’
However, Marine Le Pen is not the only French politician to have found herself in the dock on multiple occasions. Nicolas Sarkozy, elected president in 2007, has also been shuttling from courtroom to courtroom in recent years. Seven years in prison, a €300,000 fine, and a five-year ban from holding public office: on 13 May, prosecutors once again sought these penalties against Sarkozy at the appeal hearing in the case concerning the alleged Libyan financing of his 2007 presidential campaign.
The prosecution’s case has, however, become more severe. Prosecutors decided to pursue three additional charges: alongside ‘criminal conspiracy’, for which the former head of state was convicted in 2025, they are also seeking convictions for ‘corruption’, ‘receipt of embezzled public funds’, and ‘illegal campaign financing’.
Last September, Sarkozy was sentenced to five years in prison. After spending 20 days in La Santé prison, he was released under judicial supervision. Describing the sentence as a ‘scandal’, he later published a book about his time in prison, which became a bestseller.
The former president, who has been standing trial alongside nine other defendants since 16 March 2026, continues to maintain his innocence. However, new evidence has emerged during the appeal proceedings that may undermine the defence’s case, including two statements by Claude Guéant, Sarkozy’s former chief aide, that contradict the account presented at the original trial.
Legal proceedings and convictions against politicians who enjoy the trust of their fellow citizens—and who may abuse that trust—are of the utmost importance, especially in a democracy. There is a clear need for the administration of justice and for the condemnation of such abuses.
However, once this phase is concluded, a key role is also to channel social retribution. Establishing and maintaining a balance between these two principles is a fundamental prerequisite for healthy democratic development.
Furthermore, there is also the danger of setting a precedent. It is no coincidence that in countries with longer democratic traditions, the general adage is often repeated that, when making decisions or passing judgment, one must keep in mind that the same tools and principles could be used against them in the next political cycle. Restoring calm and social peace as soon as possible is a fundamental prerequisite for a stable and balanced democracy.
Related articles:
Click here to read the original article.
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.
