Dear Friends,
Following Macron’s decision to reject the Left Bloc on Monday, the news coverage has been as useful as wet bread.
The worst examples, unsurprisingly, were from Twitter. Take this gem (above), from Branko Milanovic—a breathtaking display of ignorance wrapped in historical self-importance.
But even some of the Reasonable news was misguided. So, let me clear up some things.
The Decision is within the President’s Powers
The Constitution clearly states that the President has the power to nominate the Prime Minister (Art 8), and can do so unilaterally (Art 19).
As the guardian of the Constitution (Art 5), the President is expected to intervene in the nomination process. At the very least, he is a facilitator or mediator in the formation of a government.
However, the President is not required to nominate the candidate for the biggest party. He has a degree of discretion.
And before you go on telling me that these powers, much like those of the British Crown, are merely ceremonial, let me stop you right there and remind you of the following.
It is not a Parliamentary System.
Many English-language commentators have referred to France’s National Assembly as a ‘Parliament.’ I’ll admit, I’ve even borrowed this shortcut. But here, it’s a false friend. And the small differences carry a lot of weight now.
It’s with sadness that I single out the Financial Times’ recent editorial:
“… the president on Monday rejected an attempt by the leftwing Nouveau Front Populaire, a four-party alliance that came first in June’s parliamentary elections with 180 seats in an assembly of 577.” (FT)
Several other misleading references were littered in their editorial declaration. While not as egregious as the earlier tweet , it is still negligent. But what makes the editorial worse is their unwarranted confidence: “Ungovernable France needs to learn culture of compromise.”
The FT is preaching about crumpets in a creperie.
The French regime is not a Parliamentary system. The source of government, unlike Westminster, does not fundamentally lie in Parliament.
In many ways it was designed in opposition to this.
Charles De Gaulle, whose Presidency oversaw the set up of the 1958 Constitution that now stands, was hostile to the ‘regime of parties.’ It was for this reason that the Presidency is now equipped with such considerable powers.
This fear was partly because of the instability of the Fourth Republic’s parliamentary system. Established just after the Second World War, it was put down by referendum in 1958 as it was unable to establish government leadership as a military coup loomed and the Algerian crisis raged.
But it is not Presidential either
This was a paradox of the French system observed by the constitutional experts Olivier Duhamel and Guillaume Tusseau:
“The Fifth Republic may well be the most personalised system of power that we have known for more than a century – precisely since the Second Empire [Napoleon III].”
Yet, they add that:
“… the personality of the president of the Republic doesn’t always have a decisive importance when it comes to the functioning of the system.”1
We can even find this oddity in the origins of the Constitution. Michel Debré, the Minister of Justice who led the drafting, famously stated the objectives of the Constitution 1958:
A primary objective has driven this project: to reform the parliamentary system of the Republic … The government has wished to renovate the parliamentary regime. I would even venture to say that it aims to establish it, as for many reasons, the Republic has never succeeded in doing so. The reason for this choice is simple. The assembly-based system, or convention-based regime, is impractical and dangerous. The presidential system is currently incapable of functioning in France.2
It is not Westminster Parliament, where coalitions are a natural part of its functioning.
Nor is it as the FT suggests, a question of compromising between parties.
In this unprecedented situation, it is about striking a balance within the paradox of the French system, that is neither presidential, nor parliamentary.
The left bloc does not have a majority.
Finding a balance would have been much easier, if there was a clear majority.
Again, the FT finds that “the French voted for change, rejecting his government and backing the opposition parties, with political power shifting away from the Elysée palace to parliament.”
Not really, since there is no clear winner from the June election. Jean-Marie Denquin put better than I ever could: “The President has therefore lost, but it does not follow that anyone has won.”
This is because the Left Bloc does not have an absolute majority, which requires more than half of seats. Every single government that has ever been nominated under the Fifth Republic, coalition or not, had satisfied this requirement.
The Left Bloc barely has 1/3rd. So, for them to demand parliamentary power is a problem in itself. Many leaders from the Bloc have called out Macron’s decision as a “denial” of democracy.
Well let me call out their hypocrisy. They have had months to try and grow their coalition with other parties to build the necessary majority. They have failed to do this.
And now, like a child, they are asking for the keys of the car when they can’t even reach the pedals.
There is also a practical reason why they cannot be called to govern without an absolute majority. As the President’s communique about his recent decision explained: if a government was formed from the Left Bloc’s 193 seats, they would be immediately censured by the Assembly (Art 49). "Such a government would therefore immediately face a majority of more than 350 deputies against it, effectively preventing it from acting."
Without the required majority, the Left Bloc cannot just wield parliamentary power. If they want to, they have to look beyond themselves.
Conclusion
I would not be so blind as to overlook the personal ambitions driving Macron’s recent decision. For seven weeks now, he has been trying to secure a coalition under the banner of his own failing party.
Yet, the real issue at hand is the widespread misunderstanding of France's political system that has emerged in recent days. This includes both the self-absorbed accusations of a ‘coup’ by some pundits and the hubris of some mainstream publications.
Now, more than ever, the details matter. What we are witnessing is unseen in the history of the Fifth Republic. While Macron’s move may be divisive, it is not unconstitutional. To suggest otherwise is to judge a nation’s system by laws and customs not its own.
Yours Sincerely,
Hugh Vuillier
The Sciences-Po Bible: Droit Constitutionnel et Institutions Politiques (Edition du Seuil, 2019).
27 August 1958, Michel Debré, Speech before the Conseil D’Etat.