After its defeat in the presidential election, La France insoumise (LFI) intends not to stop at the door of the second round and wants to pass the legislative elections for a “third round” of the presidential election. Jean-Luc Mélenchon thus asked the French to “elect him prime minister”on June 12 and 19, suggesting the return of cohabitation at the head of the country.
Under the Ve Republic, France has experienced three cohabitations after legislative elections were won by the opposition to the president. The first took place from 1986 to 1988, when François Mitterrand (PS) had Jacques Chirac (RPR) as Prime Minister, the second during Mr. Mitterrand’s second term with Edouard Balladur (RPR), from 1993 to 1995, and finally , a longer one between Jacques Chirac (RPR) as president and Lionel Jospin (PS) at Matignon from 1997 to 2002.
Since 2000, the transition to a five-year term and the modification of the electoral calendar – so that the legislative elections immediately follow the presidential one – have made the situations of cohabitation very hypothetical. There has never been any more and the president has since always obtained a majority in the National Assembly in the weeks following his election.
Some observers see the risk of political paralysis in cohabitation, but the latter would benefit from a good image in public opinion. Above all, it raises questions of the distribution of powers between the president and the prime minister.
The President of the Republic relegated to a more secondary role
According to the Constitution, the internal policy of the country is clearly entrusted to the members of the government:
- “the Prime Minister directs the action of the government, ensures the execution of the laws and is responsible for national defence” ;
- “the government determines and conducts the policy of the nation, it has the administration and the armed force”.
“In case of cohabitation, the power is clearly in the relationship between the Prime Minister and the National Assembly”comments the constitutionalist Dominique Rousseau, professor emeritus at the University of Paris-I-Panthéon-Sorbonne
In these power-sharing situations, the President of the Republic has a more secondary role. His own powers are framed, and it is in particular he who:
- appoints the Prime Minister of his choice (who must however have the confidence of the Assembly);
- presides over the Council of Ministers (but loses his influence with them), signs decrees and ordinances and has the power to appoint civil and military civil servants of the State;
- can dissolve the National Assembly (once a year);
- can arrogate exceptional powers in the event of a threat “serious and immediate” on the institutions, the independence of the nation, the integrity of the territory or the execution of international commitments.
The issue of foreign affairs and defense
An abusive expression wants the President of the Republic to have a “reserved area” in the national defense and foreign affairs sectors. However, the Constitution is far from being categorical on this issue. The government “disposes of the administration and the armed force” et “the Prime Minister is responsible for national defence”, according to Articles 20 and 21.
On the other hand, the text makes the Head of State the “guarantor of national independence and the integrity of the national territory” (article 5), “chief of the armies” and he “presides over the councils and higher committees of national defence” (section 15). He holds the nuclear codes and he alone decides on the use of this force. In terms of foreign policy, the Constitution provides that the president negotiates and ratifies international treaties (article 52) and accredits ambassadors (article 14).
“It is the ambiguity of our Constitution of 1958notes Dominique Rousseau. We find there the contrary influences of Michel Debré, who wanted a strong prime minister, on the British parliamentary model, and Charles de Gaulle, who wanted to give more weight to the president. »
This ambiguity obliges the Prime Minister and the President to a certain agreement. This is why it was customary during the three cohabitations that the choices fall on ministers of defense and foreign affairs who appeal to the two men in power, in order to avoid friction. “In the past, there was consensus in these areas, but today there are real differences on the role of the European Union or on the war in Ukraine. This seems much more unstable and risks causing problems in the event of cohabitation”believes the constitutionalist.
A leader of the opposition at the Elysée, with a real power of nuisance
If cohabitation makes the President of the Republic a leader of the opposition, he has the significant advantage of being at the Elysée, of benefiting from a strong voice with the French and he retains significant tribunician power. . During the first cohabitation, François Mitterrand gave press conferences in which he castigated the policy of the government of Jacques Chirac. Less than a month after the start of the third cohabitation, in 1997, President Chirac took advantage of the usual television interview on July 14 to criticize the first decisions of Lionel Jospin’s government. He didn’t hesitate afterwards either.
Since the President of the Republic is the only one who can sign decrees and ordinances in the Council of Ministers, he also has the power to interfere with an opposition government. In July 1986, François Mitterrand thus refused to sign the ordinances on the denationalisations presented by the government of Jacques Chirac, which had however obtained from Parliament the authorization to legislate by ordinances. These included the privatization of more than 60 industrial groups, unraveling the work done by the Socialists when they came to power.
Faced with this refusal from the president, Jacques Chirac had to transform the draft ordinances into a bill, which was quickly voted by the National Assembly after the government had assumed its responsibility via article 49-3 of the Constitution. If François Mitterrand did not have the power to block the text, this maneuver allowed him not to deny himself, while repositioning himself on the left. He started again in October 1986 by refusing to sign ordinances on electoral boundaries, then that on the flexibilization of working time in December 1986.
Finally, the Head of State retains the – not insignificant – power to dissolve the National Assembly. If the hypothesis was improbable during the first two cohabitations, limited to two years pending the presidential election, it became credible after the early legislative elections of 1997. Jacques Chirac having himself dissolved the National Assembly, he had to wait a year before being able to claim a new dissolution.
From 1998, he therefore had this power again, which he did not use, but which acts like a sword of Damocles over Lionel Jospin’s head. “It is a system of reciprocal neutralizationanalyzes political scientist Alain Garrigou. The president cannot apply the program on which he was elected, while the prime minister must govern by avoiding missteps that would motivate the president to dissolve the Assembly to regain the legislative elections. » For this professor emeritus in political science at the University of Paris-Nanterre, “Lionel Jospin lived during the last four years of his government in the anguish of a dissolution, and only sailed with the polls”. This long and bad experience convinced the two men in power between 1997 and 2002 to reform the elections in order to avoid cohabitation as much as possible.
Measures taken during cohabitation
From the first cohabitation, it was noticed that the 1958 Constitution gave the greatest place to the Prime Minister, who benefited from the support of the Assembly. “Despite the conflicting nature of the cohabitation, the major fear of an impossibility to govern has not been verified”, writes Alain Garrigou in his book Politics in France (2017, The Discovery).
According to him, 105 laws were passed under the first cohabitation, without there ever being a definitive blockage. Jacques Chirac’s government was thus able to unravel what the previous government had done: in 1986, it privatized companies that had been nationalized in 1981, it reversed the introduction of proportional representation in the legislative elections decided by the Socialists a year earlier, and it restores majority voting. In August 1986, the government canceled the concessions of two private channels, TV6 and La Cinq. “He also had laws adopted on the security and residence of foreigners: expulsion by prefectural decision, restriction of access to the ten-year residence permit”explains Mr. Garrigou.
The second cohabitation, that of François Mitterrand and Edouard Balladur, was not synonymous with paralysis either. The prime minister from the RPR was able to pursue the unfinished liberal program of the former cohabitation. A law for the privatization of twenty-one companies was promulgated in July 1993. A pension reform applicable to private sector employees was adopted: the contribution period necessary to obtain a full-rate pension was gradually increased from 37.5 to 40 annuities and the amount of the pension was calculated on 25 years of salary, against 10 before.
From 1997 to 2002, the Jospin government will also adopt numerous measures on the left. In December 1997, he presented his reform to reduce working hours. Jacques Chirac denounces a “authoritarian and general measure”but the reform of the 35 hours will pass, via two laws in 1998 and 2000, before being applicable in all companies from 2002. Among the main laws adopted under this government, and to which Jacques Chirac was opposed, there is also that establishing universal health coverage (CMU) in July 1999 or the creation of the civil solidarity pact (PACS) in October 1999.