Can you imagine General de Gaulle leading France without a majority? He who decided to leave power after a purely consultative referendum. Can you imagine General de Gaulle giving a general policy speech before the Parliament assembled in Congress at Versailles a few days before his Prime Minister made his general policy statement to the National Assembly? The General de Gaulle, no. But Emmanuel Macron, yes.
The return of the Assembly system against which the Fifth Republic was built
The majority system inherent to the Fifth Republic has been flouted since June 2002. Emmanuel Macron has taken no account of the legislative elections that were a disappointment; he did not heed the message, did not change as Prime Minister to appoint a personality more likely to rally the right. He deliberately decided to govern as a minority. In doing so, He reintroduced (with the complicity of the opposition) the system of Assemblies. In a system functioning normally, this anti-democratic stubbornness would have found a simple and fatal solution: the vote on a motion of censure. However, the opposition, seemingly fearing a return to the voters and the possible sanction of its inability to regenerate itself, lent its support to survive. Thus, a regime was established in which right-wing parliamentarians refuse to bring down the government in exchange for certain concessions negotiated in the dark over some bill or another. It was this device that partially blew up during the motion for preliminary rejection. to the immigration bill. But without major consequences. The system of assemblies is therefore back, which is the very opposite of the essence of the Fifth Republic!
The French, on the other hand, are the butt of the joke. We tell them not to abstain in every election but we don’t take their vote into account and we negotiate without consulting them.
In the face of an unprecedented climate of distrust, whose June riots demonstrated the obvious (Pierre Brochand rightly recalled that «nothing comparable, 100 to 200,000 rioters, had occurred in French cities since the 1789 Revolution») without any major lessons being drawn, it seems legitimate to question the responsibility of our institutions and especially of those in charge of the presidential office.
The distorted and desecrated presidential function….
The five-year term does not correspond to the spirit of the Fifth Republic; General de Gaulle will express this very clearly during his famous press conference on January 31, 1964.
«So, I believe that in France, as it is now, the President should not be elected at the same time as the deputies. This would confuse his appointment with the struggle between the parties, and would alter the nature of his office and shorten its duration.».
It was through a referendum proposed by Jacques Chirac in 2000 that it was adopted. The latter had expressed his strong reservations. But during a period of coexistence and caught between Giscard and Jospin, who were very supportive of it, he would give up on it.
The five-year term has very clearly desacralized the presidential office : The French now elect not a statesman who has a vision of the country and a roadmap to follow, but a candidate who presents a program often technocratic, a catalog of stacked measures that address all issues without soul. And they naturally expect the President-elect to implement that program (which is rather the responsibility of the Prime Minister), but without being able to exert any pressure on the new elected leader since the Constitution does not allow for questioning his political responsibility.
The personal behavior and sometimes the statements of the last holders of the office further reinforce this de-sacralization: invectives, scooter rides, and other inappropriate celebrations make the President a man like any other, even though he possesses more power than anyone else. The Fifth Republic inherently prohibits the «normal President.».
Other more circumstantial and recent factors have played in the same direction: the end of this French singularity that was the Gaullist right, the end of the bipolarization around the governing parties, the massive influences of foreign powers in the public debate, and lobbies…
But more omnipotent than ever….
One thing is certain: the Head of State is indeed the cornerstone of our institutions. His role was defined during the same press conference by General de Gaulle: «There is no civil, military, or judicial authority that cannot be conferred or maintained except by him (…)». This means that the proper functioning of the institutions rests solely on one man. The Constitution clearly states: «He ensures, through his arbitration, that the Constitution is respected. He ensures the normal functioning of the public authorities and the continuity of the State».
What to do when the President fails to live up to the function? What to do when he humiliates his Prime Minister?
It is no longer possible to let the one who seizes the Elysee for at least five years and who leads and governs in a solitary manner, according to his own pleasure, with all the force provided by our institutions, act without any counterweight. It is this dichotomy between absolute power and total irresponsibility that the French no longer tolerate.. Moreover, they no longer have personalities etched in the marble of history at the head of the state; instead, they simply have political personalities, certainly talented, but who have the unfortunate tendency to confuse the general interest with their own interests or their own re-election.
Imagine seriously another European democracy that would have allowed François Hollande, whose failure was obvious from the very beginning of his mandate and who no longer had any authority over his own party, to remain in power for five years without a single hiccup? In this kind of situation, in the United Kingdom, the majority party overturns its own leadership internally to appoint a new personality as Prime Minister. In Germany, the scenario would have been identical, either within the majority party or in the Bundestag in the event of a grand coalition.
What to do when the President of the Republic leaves no autonomy to his Prime Ministers? Making the Prime Minister the Chief of Staff of the President of the Republic (naturally subordinate to the Secretary General of the Elysée) is a major distortion that ends up putting the Prime Minister’s responsibility on decisions he did not take. A simple fuse and absolutely not the head of the parliamentary majority.
«The President is naturally the sole holder of the authority of the State. But precisely, the nature, scope, and duration of his function require that he not be absorbed by political, parliamentary, economic, etc. circumstances. This is the lot, indeed as meritorious as complex and essential as that of the French Prime Minister,» declared General de Gaulle, still during that same press conference.
It is very clear that the President of the Republic is not in charge of the daily lives of the French people, of implementing such or such measure of an economic or social nature, but that he is the man responsible for the most important thing: the destiny of France. He is not expected to be competent, but to embody France, its entire history, its diversity, its richness, its foundations. Since the Prime Minister has been relegated to the role of mere advisor to the President of the Republic, the spirit of the Institutions is being undermined. Jacques Chirac was the last President to have a Gaullist conception of the Institutions, in keeping with the spirit of the Fifth Republic.
Emmanuel Macron’s main criterion for choosing his Prime Minister is the absence of original political weight to be able to shape him, tame him, and dictate his behavior. However, often the creature escapes its creator; the function makes the man (or woman). Therefore, the rupture is programmed.
The Fifth Republic proved its solidity and stability; it survived political changes and cohabitation. Contrary to what many thought or denounced, it was not created specifically for General de Gaulle. We were on the verge of believing that the turbulent constitutional history of our «dear and old country» had found an end. The Fifth Republic was the ideal balance of power regime that we had long aspired to. Once again, the genius of General de Gaulle had been expressed and brought France back on the right path, despite the turbulent and highly divided French people.
But the major crises we are experiencing remind us that, in reality, a preliminary condition must be met for the Fifth Republic to function.: Whether it is a statesman or even an exceptional man who heads France and who wisely uses the massive power that these Institutions confer on him. To know how to be a referee above the fray, the man of the Nation, the authority of the State, and not simply a talented politician. For a long time, France has had the luck to have exceptional Presidents, knowing how to use the formidable power and immense influence that the Institutions of the Fifth Republic provide them with. That is no longer the case. It is becoming urgent to reform our Institutions to adapt them to the current times and to the profiles of those holding the highest office who intend, first and foremost, to retain power with the support of the people or without it if they prove recalcitrant: end of the five-year term to restore the seven-year term, stricter supervision of the 49.3%, overthrow of the government by simple majority… The possibilities are numerous.. But the answer certainly cannot be in the cosmetic ministerial reshuffles that keep on happening; they are more about discovering the newcomers than about changing a political line. Being Minister of General de Gaulle was a title. Being Minister of Emmanuel Macon is often being an anonymous figure. For democracy to function, elites must be identified, respected (and therefore respectable), and not vilified and corrupted in the collective imagination.
French 
English 
Chinese 
Arabic