Firstly, it can be seen that the National Front should be banned. This is because when proportional representation allowed it to have thirty-five members in the National Assembly, from 1986 to 1988; they were provocative, futile and violent, likewise with its ten deputies in the European Parliament. Therefore it should be banned because it excludes itself from modern politics by refusing to conduct itself in a justified and responsible manner, refusing to accept all non-authoritarian French beliefs. Even the president, Jacques Chirac, condemned and denounced the "racist and xenophobic" party, therefore because of its nature it must be banned just as French law states.
Furthermore, the National Front exploits people's fears and seems to believe in its own propaganda, such as “La France aux Français”. Supporting the National Front supports the criminality in the banlieues, and supports non-existent fears, such as rural France's paranoia of seeing the countryside invaded and urbanised by immigrants, thus hindering immigrant integration into France. The FN cannot understand the concept of a multi-racial society that can accept immigrants. Therefore, Le Pen's achievement of maintaining support, reveals a deep crisis regarding the concept of a harmonious multi-racial nation, the ideal which the Republic is built upon, because it appears that there is a significant minority that oppose integration.
Also, the recent emergence of Le Pen’s daughter Marine indicates that the party could be rejuvenated where it may attract the youths. It is an incoherent party without a clear political programme to follow. The National Fronts rhetoric is centred on exclusion and violence, whilst exploiting the public's fear and frustrations. It creates a sense of anachronistic brotherhood that seems to embrace many, in defiance of those who shout “no” to hate, xenophobia and intolerance. Because of this, it should be banned because it is a challenge to democratisation of continental institutions, such as the EU and is attempting to spread its influence outside of France. However, "even abroad, the French have mobilised" The French in Rome expressed their solidarity with France in front of the French Embassy in May 2002 by demonstrating with the ADFE against the way the FN contests democratic values, thus displaying its limited support.
On the other hand, democracy should respect the FN because democracy embodies freedom of expression. Consequently, the French government must tolerate the existence of the FN because, paradoxically, it is democracy that allows Le Pen to express his anti-liberal ideas. Moreover, the National front is internally weak due to its composition of different political groups, such as Vichyists and ex-Waffen SS, therefore isn’t a serious threat. In addition, support for the National Front has been consistent since 1988, gaining about five million votes in every presidential election. But, the FN draws most of its popularity from the charisma of Le Pen, with the exception of Philippe Villiers in 1995, and it can be seen that it is highly likely that the party will disintegrate after he leaves, thus rendering it harmless.
Also, implementing a ban would display a society where morals are disintegrating as it goes against democracy, contrary to its past Revolution and Resistance. However, the National Front plays the role of a party that, although irresponsible, obtains the votes of those with a fixed opinion and banning it would cause, to an extent, public unrest and anarchy. France has already coped with similar movements in its history, indeed more violent than the FN, without the need for banning them and it is this argument on the FN’s legitimacy that has made it dangerous by giving it publicity.
The National Front gains support by highlighting and exploiting ignored changes in society, thus demonstrating France’s own political instability. This is shown in the 1980s with the neo-liberalist dismantling of the public system, resulting in 1/3 of the working classes voting for the National Front. Therefore, it appears that the National Front is simply bringing the problems of French society to the government’s attention in order for them to act. It has also created the concept of “being French” to give a collective sense of salvation to those that live in the deprived suburbs whose work stability is threatened by flexibility and where inequalities worsen, in order to lessen their misery. However, this “protest vote” has self-imposed limits because many of those who vote FN have no desire for Le Pen to be president.
In conclusion, one can say that the National front should not be banned because banning it is anti-democratic and would ignore the freedom of expression. Although, the National Front is violent and intolerant, it clearly has no political plan, and can only exploit its own hatred. It has functioned as an antiestablishment outlet which embodies public insecurity. The Front National developed in a degraded economic, social and political environment and its success is clearly linked to the rise in unemployment. Therefore, one can not ban a party for being a source of socio-economic frustration against the government. It is evident that the real solution is to combat the FN, to modernise it, to get closer to the working classes who have left democracy for it, and to start to rebuild hope and united plans for the good of France and for the good of democracy. Therefore, the National front should not be banned because it seems to keep working class unrest from exploding out of control.
