“The politicization of the Presidents of the Assembly calls into question their ability to remain impartial arbiters of parliamentary work”

2023-06-09 05:00:22

Ln June 7, Yaël Braun-Pivet announced her desire to declare inadmissible the amendments restoring article 1 of the bill to repeal the pension reform raising the legal age of departure to 64 years, filed by the Freedoms, Independents, Overseas and Territories (LIOT) group. doing so « barrage » at the very heart of the text, the President (Renaissance) of the National Assembly took a position in the debate opposing the executive to the deputies of the opposition.

If the substantive dispute relating to the interpretation of Article 40 of the Constitution has been largely dealt with, this capitulation of the President of the National Assembly in favor of the presidential camp (after weeks of pressure) raises the question of the politicization of its role. This is intrinsically linked to the origins of his mandate, his attachment to his original political group and his mission of supporting the executive.

For the Renaissance group, it seems normal that the president has (finally) rallied to the wishes of the latter, since it is precisely thanks to him that Yaël Braun-Pivet was brought to the perch. Indeed, since 1958, in the National Assembly, voting discipline has always led to the presidency of a member from the dominant group of the majority of the Chamber. The election of the president of the institution is more akin to the choice of a camp than that of a person. Moreover, the candidates for the presidency systematically receive the consent of the executive, as was the case for Yaël Braun-Pivet.

Consensus between the majority and the opposition

Once elected, the presidents remain members of their parliamentary group (in this case, of the Renaissance group) and continue to play an important political role, both intramural and extramural, thereby becoming an essential cog in the machinery majority.

Consequently, the Presidents of French Parliamentary Assemblies – in particular the National Assembly – seem to conduct two series of activities simultaneously which must not interfere, questioning, in fact, their ability to remain impartial arbiters of parliamentary work.

Read also: Article reserved for our subscribers Charles de Courson and the presidents of parliamentary groups: “A new denial of democracy could only aggravate disaffection for our institutions”

By choosing to remain women and men politicians who have an important position in their party and are thus led not to appear totally neutral in clan rivalries, the presidents of the Assemblies do not seem to be able to claim impartiality in the direction of the work of their Chamber and, as such, have only weak prerogatives in the conduct of debates, in comparison with other Presidents of Chambers abroad, in particular in the United Kingdom.

You have 54.15% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.