La column published in The world May 19 “And if cohabitation was not an anomaly, but a return to normal? by Arthur Guichoux, raises the question of what is called “the normal”. If it is the text of the 1958 Constitution, which is parliamentary, that is correct. Its article 20 provides that “the government determines and conducts the policy of the nation”. This is true regardless of the nature of the majority sitting in the National Assembly.
If normal is the constitutional practice as it has imposed itself because of the election of the president by universal suffrage, this is not the case. This practice does not consist in giving a majority to a party or a coalition so that their leader becomes head of government, but in giving it to the President of the Republic.
Long unsaid, but now almost assumed by Emmanuel Macron, the President of the Republic is the real leader of the majority, so that he “normally” grants himself the power that the Constitution reserves for the government. One may prefer one “normal” to the other, but cohabitation is neither. It makes the president the political adversary of the government, since he was elected on a program and with a majority that the legislative election denied. An adversary cannot be the arbiter ensuring the functioning of public powers (art. 5 of the Constitution).
Compared to constitutional practice, it renders the election by universal suffrage of the Head of State meaningless, since the latter is not in a position to govern. The idea brandished by the vanquished, on the evening of the presidential election, according to which a different parliamentary majority should be elected, so that the president does not have all the powers, is a decoy.
A prime minister potentially in a position of strength
If the president does not control the National Assembly, he does not govern. Claiming that he would lead diplomacy and defense is wrong. Article 20 of the Constitution indicates that the government “disposes of the administration and the armed force”. This means that the Head of State does not engage on one or the other. At best, he has negative possibilities such as not signing appointment decrees or ordinances.
If a would-be prime minister didn’t want to deliver arms to Ukraine, the president couldn’t. He would not remain the head of diplomacy either, since the Quai d’Orsay would be awarded to a person chosen by the Prime Minister in strict application of the Constitution. Would this cohabitation change anything in the majority fact? Not necessarily.
You have 40.45% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.