Christophe Lemardelé has a doctorate in religious sciences and a researcher attached to the Laboratory for studies on monotheisms. He is also a professor of history and moral and civic education.
As we approach the presidential election, the question arises of the proper functioning of our institutions, more specifically of the balance of power between the executive and the legislative.
It would be important to carry out an institutional reform but, contrary to what advocates of the passage to a Sixth Republic, without setting up a parliamentary system, given the bad memories of the Fourth Republic.
Neither does it seem to us that we should move towards a presidential system without the office of Prime Minister, as is the case in the United States.
We don't have the same history or the same political culture.
We must first ask ourselves the question of whether we cannot attempt, before any radical reform, to save the Gaullian institutional system.
To read also Arnaud Teyssier: "As under the Fourth Republic, mediocrity is everywhere, authority nowhere"
Concerning the current dysfunctions, the observation is implacable: contrary to the spirit of the Constitution wanted by de Gaulle, it is not the Prime Minister who governs but the President. To be fairer, it would be necessary to specify: it is no more. Also, before abolishing the office of Prime Minister, it is necessary to wonder about an ultimately fairly recent use of the office. Because, yes, according to the terms used by Jacques Julliard in his column published in
Le Figaro
on January 3, we are dealing
"with an ultra-presidential regime, close to autocracy"
with Emmanuel Macron, of whom Jean Castex is not that
"the pain-reliever"
, in any case the performer.
Advocating for an “American-style” presidential system will not solve the problem, even with a National Assembly elected on a proportional basis. Because the real dysfunction which allows this autocracy, it was the passage from the seven-year term to the five-year term. The separation of powers is no longer effective since the deputies are elected following the President of the Republic. The latter takes office with his majority and this newly elected power remains in place for five years without being challenged.
Mitterrand and Chirac were able to be re-elected after a period, short for one, long for the other, of cohabitation. The fourteen years of the first were not an absolute reign since they included four years of political alternation. Sarkozy and Hollande, meanwhile, had almost total power (except for a few rebels for the second) for five years, and political alternation prevented their re-election. Macron seems better placed to be reelected, but the presidential election has never perhaps been so indecisive, nor the political landscape devastated as the notion of political party has lost its consistency. As Julliard himself writes:
"We hardly find any more citizens holding a party card by pure ideological conviction".
Cohabitation occurred in part only because of the too long duration of electoral mandates.
Christophe Lemardele
Thus, it is important to put the Fifth Republic back on its feet. And, to do this, to promote the return of a political life worthy of the name: to breathe new life into parliamentarians, to prevent the President from being an "Omnipresident". Extending the presidential term to six years is probably a great idea. But it is important that there is a national election during this term. On the model of the old system, one could envisage that the deputies are elected only for four years. However, as the opponents of the Fifth Republic would say that it is in fact going back in a way to the seven-year term of yesteryear and its cohabitations, we could go further: therefore extend the presidential mandate by one year but reduce that of the deputies. two years.This may seem paradoxical but would avoid the weariness of the French - cohabitation only occurred in part because of the too long duration of electoral mandates.
In this way, the members of the majority would be much more concerned with their re-election after three years, and therefore with the satisfaction of their constituents at the local level, than to stick only to a role of infantry of the President. In addition, the function of Prime Minister would become again important because the President would be in the need to appoint a head of government who can be fully accepted by this assembly of more independent deputies. The rebalancing of executive and legislative powers would be able to restore the Prime Minister in place to all his legitimacy. Decoupling the mandate of the deputies from the mandate of the President, whatever the duration chosen for the former, is in any case one of the conditions for returning to a more satisfactory democratic political life.
We are caught in an opposition which has replaced the Left / Right cleavage: a Center bloc, more technocratic than republican, and "populisms" on both sides of this bloc.
Christophe Lemardele
Finally, Jacques Julliard evokes in his tribune the dark future of democracy in the light of citizen disengagement and abstention. As he suggests, we are caught in an opposition that has replaced the Left / Right divide: a Center bloc, more technocratic than republican, and “populisms” on both sides of this bloc. He rightly believes that the awakening of citizens can in no way come from civic education. On the other hand, it neglects in our eyes an important aspect: against abstention of young people and the aging of the electoral body, which ends up paralyzing national policy by taking minimal risks, it would be necessary to grant the right to vote to 16 years, when the aspiring voter is still in school, which would make it possible to make effective
"The role of the school as a teacher of democracy"
in the words of the columnist.
Rebalance powers, bring elected officials closer to their constituents and integrate young people, demographically in the minority, into the political game: we do not need a new leader every five years, but elected officials accountable to their constituents.