2023-08-29 17:45:32
The President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron, during his speech to the French ambassadors, in Paris, on August 28, 2023. TERESA SUAREZ / AFP
Emmanuel Macron receives, Wednesday, August 30, in Saint-Denis, the parties represented in Parliament, from La France insoumise (LFI) to the National Rally (RN). With this rout, the Head of State wants to build « ensemble » legislative texts and envisages, “if applicable”the holding of referendums.
Proof that“no door is closed”on the content of the discussions as on the form of their concretization, the spokesman of the government, Olivier Véran, describes a president “open, and why not even [sur l’organisation] of the “preferendum””. “It is a concept that would allow us to test several subjects at the same time during the same vote.developed the Minister Delegate for Democratic Renewal, the August 28 on BFM-TV. For example, you can ask multiple questions to French people. »
Ecology, security, immigration, institutions, education: Emmanuel Macron has opened wide the field of subjects that will be on the table, Wednesday in Seine-Saint-Denis. Olivier Véran took care not to specify those who could be the subject of a “preferendum”. Nor did he really present the conditions for organizing this still hypothetical consultation. Just the elected official of Isère praised it as being a means of circumventing the “reproaches often made to the referendum” : transform the vote into a personal plebiscite of the citizens for the President of the Republic. “By asking many questions [en même temps]people will maybe let go on an item [sujet] and be able to answer on the merits on all the other questions “considered Olivier Véran.
Several referendums during the same consultation?
Par ” several questions “ during a single passage to the polls, the former minister of health intends to hold simultaneous referendums in different areas. The ten referenda convened since 1958 – the last in 2005 on the European Constitution – all focused on a single subject. But nothing in the state would prevent organizing several on the same day.
L’article 11 of the Constitution allows the Head of State to submit to a referendum “any bill” relating to strictly defined subjects: “organization of public authorities” ; “reforms relating to the economic, social or environmental policy of the nation and to public services” ; “ratification of a treaty”. “Any bill” : the supreme norm of French law does not limit, in principle, the number of texts possibly debated during a consultation.
Read the column: Article reserved for our subscribers A political return to the flavor of the old world
In several decisions (delivered on June 26, 1987 et May 4, 2000), the Constitutional Council nevertheless ruled that the question asked during a referendum should “meet the double requirement of fairness and clarity of the consultation” and not “to behave equivocally”nor on the meaning of the question asked, nor on the scope of the consultation. “The requirement of clarity is appreciated not only for each question, but also on the whole of the consultation if they are multiple”specifies Bertrand Mathieu, professor of constitutional law at the University of Paris-I-Panthéon-Sorbonne, doubtful about the possibility of questioning citizens, at the same time, on subjects as varied as the environment and security, or institutions.
A “giant survey” with strong legal uncertainty?
Device without any legal translation, the term “preferendum” – handled without further precision by Olivier Véran – can also evoke a mode of consultation carried for several years by the defenders of a “democratic renewal”, the citizen consultation. In a column published in February 2019 in The worldthe Better Voting association, deploring in particular the “binary logic” of the referendum, pleaded for the establishment of a “preferential”. Either a “a tool for pacification and building consensus” which, to the classic alternative, between the « oui » or « non », would replace the statements provided for by the majority judgment (« excellent », ” GOOD “, « passable », ” insufficient “, “to reject”).
Voting Better took taxation and the environment as an example. Rather than asking people if they are “for” or “against” a fuel tax, they would be asked to express their opinion on several ways to tax fuel and energy, each of which they should evaluate (“What do you think of a fuel tax on cars only? » ; “A tax on kerosene for planes? » ; “A full redistribution of income to households or an investment in ecological transition? », etc.).
If this is the device approached by Olivier Véran, a “Preference” from Wednesday’s meeting would therefore offer citizens “several choices” on multiple subjects. All governed in the state of the law by no law, even less by the Constitution.
A “ex nihilo procedure, a sort of life-size survey organized by the State”according to the constitutionalist Bertrand Mathieu, who is already alerting to the lack of ” security “ of such a vote. “Insecurity first about the terms of the summons and the organizationrecalls the lawyer. Insecurity especially on the fate of this “preferendum”: nothing will bind the legislative and executive powers to its outcome, and no one will be able to seize the Constitutional Council to enforce the ballot boxes. We would end up with a gas plant with an unpredictable fate, all marked by a strong risk of confusion due to a misappropriation of the term “referendum”. »
#preferendum #democratic #tool #envisaged #government