On April 5, the deputies of the Law Commission refused to forward a proposal for a constituent RIC for consideration by the National Assembly. While the majority of parliamentarians support the idea that this device represents “a tool for contesting national representation”only a few parliamentarians supported the idea that the citizen’s voice should weigh more heavily in the institutions of the Fifth Republic.
Since 2020, it has been possible to submit a citizen petition on the platform of the National Assembly. If a petition obtains more than 5,000 signatures, it is assigned to the competent parliamentary committee. A rapporteur is then appointed. The latter then proposes either to examine the text in the National Assembly, or to classify it.
A major amendment to Article 89 of the Constitution
On November 11, 2022, political scientist Clara Egger deposit a petition on the website of the National Assembly which aims to introduce a constituent Citizens’ Initiative Referendum (RIC). During its review in the Parliamentary Committee on April 5, only deputies from the La France Insoumise (LFI) and Europe Écologie-Les Verts (EELV) groups wanted the text to be sent to the hemicycle.
The petition, which has collected more than 16,000 signatures, proposes a major modification of Article 89 of the Constitution. Indeed, in the event of a revision of the founding text, the supporters of the RIC suggest that it is the people who have the last word. Above all, the initiative recommends that citizens can also initiate a constitutional change, and that such a modification no longer comes only from the President of the Republic or from parliamentarians.
However, the Commission’s rapporteur sees in these proposals a desire to harm representative democracy and its institutions.
“A tool for contesting national representation”
In presenting the content of the petition to the Parliamentary Committee, MP Éric Pouillat (Renaissance) considers that the text is “designed as a tool for contesting national representation, judged in principle to be failing to represent the people, while the members of the national presentation are elected by direct universal suffrage”and adds that the spirit of the petition responds to “a logic that contests the results of democratic elections”.
Moreover, he does not see the exclusion of parliamentary control in a good light. Constitutional revision is often too technical to be left to popular referendum alone. Without forgetting that “the circulation of false information can also have an influence on the choice of the citizen and thus constitute a real danger for democracy”.
The National Rally (RN) also wishes to classify the examination of the petition, preferring instead to bet on the establishment of proportional representation to restore the confidence of the French in their institutions. The parliamentary group remains attached to the Fifth Republic and does not wish to change its functioning. The Socialist Party (PS) fears that such initiatives will relaunch dangerous debates, such as the one on the reinstatement of the death penalty.
Only the votes of the elected LFI and EELV remain to vote in favor of the examination of the text in Parliament.
“You shouldn’t complain if the citizen is never given any space. So all he has left is the street”
The representatives of these two parliamentary groups recall that the role of the Commission is to decide whether there should be a debate in the National Assembly, not to give its opinion. Deputy Jérémie Iordanoff adopts a serious tone and explains that the current social protest goes beyond simple pension reform. It reflects a crisis of the regime and Parliament would do well to “take up this subject”.
Deputy Jean-François Coulomme is offended that parliamentarians can claim that a petition relating to a referendum would be an attack on democracy. “Aren’t you neighbors of Switzerland? », he quips.
Finally, MP Elisa Martin concludes the session with a warning: “You shouldn’t complain if the citizen is never given any space. So all he has left is the street”. An interpellation to which the rapporteur of the Commission replies: “The first citizen irruption is the vote, moreover it works since you are there”.
In the end, the vote to consider the petition on the RIC did not reach a majority. It was filed by the Commission, along with the petition for the dissolution of Brav-M, the same day.