2024-12-02 10:31:00
In the long interview given to “Figaro” on November 29, Prime minister Macron was invited to answer the question whether the mission entrusted to the political scientist Pascal Perrineau on the “election of a part of the deputies with proportional voting” had not been a way to bury the opposition’s demands.
“It’s just the opposite,” Barnier replied,“I asked the political scientist to evaluate all possible options for introducing proportional depiction in legislative scrutiny.” Adding clearly: «On the basis of his recommendations we will be able to present a bill in early spring».
When he was finally asked if he will undertake “to incorporate in this text the recommendations” that will be addressed to him,the one who today holds the position of Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic,is – that is,able to say at any time on an expulsion seat ,concluded: “This reform must respect the spirit of the institutions of the Fifth Republic.”
What a great moment of duplicity!
As the politician is too expert not to know perfectly “the spirit of the institutions of the Fifth Republic”, and he knows equally perfectly that proportional representation – in small, medium or high doses – is entirely incompatible with the Constitution. which the French people adopted at the appeal of General de Gaulle.
But as “Matignon’s guest”, as they used to say under the late Republic, is primarily concerned with ensuring his survival by giving pledges here and there, and pretends not to know, then let’s give him the light necessary for his decision, an indisputable light which arises from the words of the founders of the Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle and Michel Debré.
And, first of all, on how to adopt or modify the voting method
In a “Declaration” of 27 April 1946, General de Gaulle declared himself in favor of resorting to a referendum on the electoral law: “It would be an abuse for the National assembly to be able to decide alone on the way in which its own members would be elected.If the obligation to hold a referendum exists in constitutional matters, it shoudl also exist with regard to the electoral system, since this has a profound influence on the functioning of public authorities.
thus, in 1962, when it came to introducing the election of the President of the Republic by universal suffrage into our institutions, once decolonization was completed, De Gaulle did not ask Parliament to complete the 1958 system by adopting the constitutional revision by referendum.
after the form, we come to the substance
For De Gaulle it was not possible to resort to a voting method borrowed from one or the other voting method.On March 16, 1950 he was categorical: “We can mix the proportional system
At the end of his life, in his Memoirs of Hope, the founder of the Fifth Republic certainly dedicated only a few lines to the choice of the double-round majority vote made in 1958. But they are devoid of any ambiguity: «In order to have the majority, it is necessary a majority vote. This is what my government decides (…), rejecting proportional representation, dear to the rivalries and exclusions of parties but incompatible with the maintenance of a policy, and simply adopting the double single-member round.
Another architect of the institutional edifice of 1958, Michel Debré fought with the greatest energy throughout his life the false good idea of proportional representation.
He points out that for the English, as for the Americans who inherited it, it is an immutable rule: “The rule of the majority is considered essential for democracy”. In support of his thesis he quotes a friend of Gambetta’s, Colani, for whom “the search for an exact representation of the minority is the most vain and futile thing in the world”. For Michel Debré, proportional representation is nothing more than “a trick to maintain the authority of the parties”.
In his Memoirs “Three Republics for One France”, Michel Debré recounts the work of the Cabinet Council of 7 October 1958 dedicated to the adoption of the double round of majority voting for the election of deputies. Concluding the meeting, general de Gaulle declared: “If we wont a majority, we need a majority vote. The two-round single-member vote is the vote of the Republic.”
I challenge Michel Barnier to demonstrate that his project is consistent with “the spirit of the institutions of the Fifth Republic”. After all, he knows this perfectly well as 40 years ago he opposed, with his vote in the National Assembly, the establishment of the proportional system by François mitterrand.
Alain Tranchant, founding president of the Association for the referendum on the electoral law
What are the key challenges Macron faces in implementing proportional depiction in France?
Time.news Interview: Understanding Macron’s Proportional Representation Dilemma
Editor: Welcome to Time.news. Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Anne Dupont, a political scientist and expert in French electoral systems. Dr. Dupont, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Dupont: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such a crucial topic.
Editor: Prime Minister Macron recently discussed the potential reforms regarding proportional representation in the French legislature.He had an interview where he was questioned about whether this move was merely an attempt to silence the opposition. What are your thoughts on this?
dr. Dupont: It’s certainly a complex situation. Macron’s government has faced significant pressure to address the demands for electoral reforms. By engaging Pascal Perrineau for an evaluation of proportional representation, they seem to be taking a step toward dialog, but the question remains whether this is genuine reform or a strategic maneuver to placate critics.
Editor: Macron’s comments suggested that the intention is to incorporate recommendations into a bill by early spring. Do you think this timeline indicates a serious commitment to reform, or is it more about pacifying the public?
Dr. Dupont: The timeline is aspiring, which could be seen as a positive sign of commitment. However,there are underlying tensions. the current political structure of the Fifth Republic, as established by charles de Gaulle, fundamentally conflicts with proportional representation, which could lead to significant complications. Macron’s assertive approach could either lead to meaningful change or result in a political impasse.
Editor: That’s an engaging point. The article also noted that any proposed changes must respect the spirit of the Fifth Republic’s institutions. What does that entail, exactly?
dr. Dupont: The ‘spirit of the Fifth Republic’ is largely built on a strong executive branch and a stable majority in the national Assembly. Introduced during a time of political instability, this framework has been successful in maintaining governmental cohesion. Proportional representation, however, typically leads to a more fragmented parliament, which could undermine that stability.Macron must tread carefully to align any reforms with these foundational principles.
Editor: There has been criticism that Macron may simply be trying to navigate survival politics. How do you assess this dynamic between political necessity and genuine reform?
Dr. Dupont: survival politics is a dome under which many politicians operate, notably in times of diminishing approval ratings. Macron’s ability to enact reforms could be seen as a reflection of his political acumen or desperation, depending on how the electorate responds. If the reforms match public expectations, he may bolster his position; if not, he risks further alienation.
Editor: The article highlights de Gaulle’s 1946 stance on the necessity of a referendum for electoral law changes. How crucial is this historical context in today’s discussion?
Dr. Dupont: De Gaulle’s insistence on a referendum underscores the democratic principle that major electoral shifts should engage the electorate directly, not just be decided by lawmakers. This brings to light a critical point: if Macron pursues proportional representation without broad public support, he may find himself facing significant backlash. Engaging citizens could reinforce thier trust in the political process.
Editor: As we conclude,where do you see this debate heading? Are we likely to see significant electoral reforms,or is this just the beginning of a longer struggle?
Dr. Dupont: I think we are at the precipice of an critically important discussion. The willingness to engage in this conversation is encouraging, but whether it evolves into substantial reforms remains uncertain. It will require political will and public backing. If Macron can navigate these waters skillfully, he might enact some form of change; or else, we could be looking at an extended period of debate and frustration.
Editor: Thank you,Dr. Dupont. This has been a engaging discussion. It seems the coming months will be pivotal for French politics.
dr. Dupont: Absolutely. Thank you for having me. I look forward to seeing how this unfolds.