Dissolve LFI? The law allows it in theory, the Republic has everything to lose

Since the violence of 17 October, one idea has been circulating on the right with new insistence: dissolving La France insoumise. Bruno Retailleau put it forward as early as 1 October on BFMTV-RMC, François-Xavier Bellamy took it up on 18 October on Europe 1, and Gérard Larcher said in Le Figaro on 19 October that "the question can be asked". On Saturday, the day of the second act of the mobilisation against the cost of living, LCP published a detailed legal analysis of this scenario. The debate is now on the table. It deserves to be taken seriously, precisely so that it can be answered.

What the law says

According to LCP, the legal basis invoked would be Article L. 212-1 of the Internal Security Code. This provision allows the government to dissolve an association or group by decree, in particular for incitement to violent acts against people or property.

A political party is not shielded from this text. The Conseil d'État established this in its Civitas decision of 30 December 2024: parties constituted as associations "are not excluded in principle" from its scope. But the safeguards are numerous. Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees that parties "are formed and carry out their activities freely". Article L. 212-1-1 attributes the acts of members to a group only if they act in that capacity, or if its leaders, once informed, did nothing to prevent them. And the European Court of Human Rights requires "convincing and compelling" reasons to dissolve a party.

The legal experts interviewed by LCP agree. For Nicolas Hervieu, affiliate professor at Sciences Po, dissolution is formally possible, but it would have to be demonstrated in law that LFI itself incites violence. LCP concludes that such a measure currently appears relatively unlikely.

The positions at stake

Supporters of a ban put forward an argument that must be heard. They believe that the slogans of some LFI figures contributed to a climate that led to looting and arson, including the fire at Limoges town hall. In the Senate, according to Public Sénat, Claude Malhuret accused LFI of hijacking the anger of high school students and spoke of a "dress rehearsal" ahead of the presidential election. Without going as far as dissolution, Sébastien Lecornu referred to an "agenda of destabilisation" by the radical far left and described Jean-Luc Mélenchon's attacks on the judiciary as a "very serious attack on the rule of law". According to RFI, Édouard Philippe denounced an "organised ultra-left", while Raphaël Glucksmann criticises Jean-Luc Mélenchon for not clearly condemning the violence.

LFI, for its part, rejects any call for violence and any link with the looting, according to RFI. Jean-Luc Mélenchon called Bruno Retailleau "ridiculous", and Manuel Bompard described these proposals as "grotesque". The movement also turns the accusation around. On 19 October Mediapart published an investigation according to which territorial intelligence officers were allegedly instructed to attribute the movement to LFI, a claim that a police superintendent quoted by the outlet reportedly considers objectively false. The Interior Ministry denies having given any such instructions. Laurent Nuñez replied "That's false!" in the National Assembly, and the Prime Minister said it was "unthinkable" for a government to give such instructions, LCP reports. According to AFP, Manuel Bompard announced that he intends to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the Republic. A parliamentary commission of inquiry into the violence has been set up: it is for it, and for the courts, to establish the facts.

Analysis: do not confuse firmness with the easy way out

There can be no indulgence towards violence. Looted shops, threatened elected officials and burned town halls are attacks on the Republic, and those who commit them must answer before the courts. The national anti-terrorism prosecutor's office has taken up part of the case: that is the right path. It is just as legitimate to ask LFI leaders for an unambiguous condemnation of the violence.

But dissolving by decree the largest left-wing parliamentary group would be another matter. It would deprive millions of voters of their representation, by decision of an executive that is itself a party to the political debate. Augustin Berthout, senior lecturer at the University of Lorraine, points out in LCP that French law "greatly politicises the decision", whereas Germany and Spain entrust this power to independent courts. The Gaullist tradition has always distinguished the political opponent, whom one fights at the ballot box, from the enemy of the State. And those who today propose dissolving a party should ask themselves what use a future extremist government could make of the precedent.

As long as Mediapart's accusations about the intelligence services have not been cleared up, any measure against LFI would be suspected of being political. Finally, the anger being expressed in the streets is about the cost of living, wages and the future of young people. On Saturday, according to franceinfo, the Interior Minister himself considered that the marches had gone well, while denouncing the presence of rioters. Reducing this movement to a partisan plot would mean missing what it says about the country.

Conclusion

The Republic already has the tools to punish violence: criminal justice, and the dissolution of small groups whose actions are established. Rather than embarking on the risky project of banning a party, should we not, as in Germany, entrust an independent judge with the power to dissolve a political organisation, and otherwise let voters decide in 2027?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.