Is it time to put an end to French-style presidentialism?
The legislative elections on July 7 seem to have dispelled the "risk of civil war" that President Emmanuel Macron had linked to the "programs of the two extremes" in a podcast recorded between the two rounds of voting. However, the results have (once again) led to the seats in the new National Assembly being divided into three political blocs.
William Genieys, Sciences Po and Mohammad-Saïd Darviche, University of Montpellier
This "tripartite division" of political life since 2017 calls into question the functioning of theFifthRepublic, described as a semi-presidential system. The existence of an absolute majority in the National Assembly—of the same political persuasion as the president or opposed to him—was the condition for establishing a representative government. The lack of such a majority, and the political deadlock in forming a government, highlights the limitations of this institutional practice and risks, beyond the ups and downs of political life, leading to an unprecedented crisis in French-style presidentialism.
Is tripartition an insurmountable challenge for the Fifth Republic?
This "tripartite division" of political life emerged in 2017 when Emmanuel Macron was first elected President of the Republic. It resulted in the weakening of the so-called "government" parties—the Socialist Party and the Republicans—and the rise of anti-elite elites at the head of the National Rally (Marine Le Pen) and La France Insoumise (Jean-Luc Mélenchon).
During this first five-year term, French-style presidentialism functioned "normally," with the president's party winning 308 seats in the legislative elections of June 18, 2017.
Although some constitutional law experts had declared it obsolete, the "majority rule" had enabled the formation of a government favorable to the president. However, during this first presidential term, the "yellow vest" movement and the Covid-19 pandemic led to a strengthening of the political tripartite system.
Re-elected in 2022, Emmanuel Macron had to deal with a National Assembly that reflected this reality. Elisabeth Borne's government, with only a relative majority of 250 Ensemble deputies, underwent four adjustments and two reshuffles in less than two years of existence, and made use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution 23 times, allowing it to bypass the majority procedure for passing laws by invoking the government's responsibility before the National Assembly.
The results of the latest legislative elections on July 7 have turned the three-way political split into a stumbling block for the formation of a government. This situation poses a risk of dysfunction to the pluralist democracy defined by American political scientist Robert Dahl. To understand this risk, it is important to understand the criticisms of presidentialism.
[Already more than 120,000 subscriptions to The Conversation newsletters. How about you? Subscribe today to better understand the major issues facing the world.]
Pluralist democracy in the face of the "failures of presidentialism"
In the 1990s, Spanish-American sociologist Juan Linz warned of two dangers of presidentialism. First, that of dual democratic legitimacy: the legitimacy of the president and that of parliament could compete with each other. Second, that of the "fixed" term of office of the president, despite changes in the political majority in Parliament.
Here we are: a president with three years left in office facing an assembly that is not favorable to him. Such a situation was overcome by periods of cohabitation under the presidencies of François Mitterrand (1986-1988, 1993-1995) and Jacques Chirac (1997-2002) because an absolute majority opposed to the president in the National Assembly was able to appoint a prime minister capable of governing. In the current situation, the lack of an absolute majority makes it difficult to form a government.
This institutional crisis is all the more serious because it is part of a broader crisis of pluralistic democracy. According to American political scientist John Higley, since the end of World War II, democratic regimes have been based on a common foundation of liberal and egalitarian values shared by the vast majority of political elites.
This consensus was supported by citizens' trust in constitutional and legal rules. However, over the past 20 years or so, radical ideologies promoted by populist leaders (or elites) and amplified by the digital media environment have contributed to a weakening of this political culture. In the current French context, presidentialism is likely to alter the functioning of pluralist democracy.
The end of an "ambiguous consensus"?
Starting in 2017, the choice of candidate and then President Emmanuel Macron was to protect the culture of consensus around the leitmotif "at the same time."
The aim was to make the president and his movement the embodiment of political consensus. This strategy involved weakening the governing parties at the risk of pandering to extremism. It failed in 2022 with the loss of the presidential party's absolute majority in the National Assembly. The culture of consensus then became incantatory in the face of the almost routine use of the Article 49.3 procedure.
Thus, opponents, clearly supported by public opinion, were able to denounce a "forceful move."
In this context, it appears that presidentialism has not only become a "thing"—to paraphrase General de Gaulle's remarks on the UN —that is obsolete in light of the changing French political landscape, but also a potential danger to pluralistic democracy.
The Republic beyond presidentialism
What can be done? Moving toward an American-style presidential system seems ill-advised, especially given the heightened polarization that has taken hold there since the mid-1990s and the way Donald Trump has played on it since January 6, 2021, and the storming of the Capitol by his supporters.
It seems more logical to follow the path of parliamentarianism taken by other European countries. Not that this is a panacea, but for the time being, it would be more in line with the political pluralism expressed at the ballot box, and could also avoid providing populist leaders with the weapons of presidentialism.
With public opinion in his favor (63% of French people support him), the President of the Republic now has the opportunity to work with the President of the Senate and the President of the National Assembly to initiate a process of constitutional reform that will bring our democracy into line with the current political tripartite system while preserving its pluralism.
Such a revision would make it possible to guard against the dangers of presidentialism by leaving room for a National Assembly elected by majority vote with a "dose of proportional representation." In addition, this approach would avoid providing institutional weapons to populist leaders who could misuse presidentialism for authoritarian purposes.
William Genieys, CNRS Research Director at CEE, Sciences Po and Mohammad-Saïd Darviche, Senior Lecturer, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.