Benjamin Morel is a lecturer in public law at the University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas.
LE FIGARO. - The Third Republic is particularly famous for its instability, with more than 100 different governments. What are the similarities between this diet and the times we are going through?
Benjamin Morel. -
Comparison is not right, but there are indeed some interesting food for thought.
First, the Third Republic can be divided into two very distinct periods.
The first, roughly until the 1920s, was characterized by an absence of large structured parties that could impose discipline on political groups in the chamber.
The Chamber of Deputies is more an addition of personality with varied and evolving political tendencies.
Governments sometimes have a political color, but are much more a sum of individuals.
There is no voting discipline as we know it today.
Often, governments fall, but they are recomposed with, for the most part, the same members a few days later.
There is strong government instability,
but a great stability of political personnel.
The fall of a government is therefore not a tragedy, it does not lead to a political deadlock.
It is linked to an antechamber game, quickly resolved by the same actors who initiated it.
The situation changes with the progressive structuring of strong, disciplined political parties;
whose members are not elected on their individual auras, but on a program of which they are only the spokespersons.
The fall of a government then implies the absence of political consensus between parties.
This problem is much less easily solved than were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
this does not result in a political deadlock.
It is linked to an antechamber game, quickly resolved by the same actors who initiated it.
The situation changes with the progressive structuring of strong, disciplined political parties;
whose members are not elected on their individual auras, but on a program of which they are only the spokespersons.
The fall of a government then implies the absence of political consensus between parties.
This problem is much less easily solved than were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
this does not result in a political deadlock.
It is linked to an antechamber game, quickly resolved by the same actors who initiated it.
The situation changes with the progressive structuring of strong, disciplined political parties;
whose members are not elected on their individual auras, but on a program of which they are only the spokespersons.
The fall of a government then implies the absence of political consensus between parties.
This problem is much less easily solved than were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
The situation changes with the progressive structuring of strong, disciplined political parties;
whose members are not elected on their individual auras, but on a program of which they are only the spokespersons.
The fall of a government then implies the absence of political consensus between parties.
This problem is much less easily solved than were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
The situation changes with the progressive structuring of strong, disciplined political parties;
whose members are not elected on their individual auras, but on a program of which they are only the spokespersons.
The fall of a government then implies the absence of political consensus between parties.
This problem is much less easily solved than were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
were the disagreements between notables at the beginning of the Third Republic.
Also, we find ourselves little by little in a situation of political deadlock.
Obviously without drawing any ideological parallels between the parties of yesteryear and those of today, the strategic configuration of the Fourth Republic was similar, forcing alliances at the center between forces having neither hooked atoms nor common interests.
Benjamin Morel
The Fourth Republic tries to provide institutional solutions to this problem.
However, it suffers from a major political problem.
Two important political forces do not fall within the scope of possible alliances to support a government.
From 1947, because of the Cold War, the Communists were rejected from the field of possible alliances.
The Gaullists, both because General de Gaulle refuses it, and because they are perceived by many as opposed to the regime, will never really be integrated into this political system.
However, these two currents weigh between 30 and 40% of the electorate.
To support a government under the IVth it is therefore necessary that the other parties unite on a space, limited in voice, but going, ideologically, from the SFIO, which does not
has theoretically not given up on the collectivization of the means of production, on a right which will soon open hostilities against De Gaulle in the name of French Algeria.
The distances are great… Government instability is linked to this singular political configuration.
We find this fragility today.
Without obviously drawing any ideological parallels between the parties of yesteryear and those of today, the strategic configuration is similar, forcing alliances at the center between forces having neither hooked atoms nor common interests.
We find this fragility today.
Without obviously drawing any ideological parallels between the parties of yesteryear and those of today, the strategic configuration is similar, forcing alliances at the center between forces that have neither hooked atoms nor common interests.
We find this fragility today.
Without obviously drawing any ideological parallels between the parties of yesteryear and those of today, the strategic configuration is similar, forcing alliances at the center between forces that have neither hooked atoms nor common interests.
The constitution of the Fifth Republic is riddled with provisions precisely intended to ensure stability in the face of a fragmented assembly with regard to the past experiences of the Third and Fourth Republics.
Benjamin Morel
Can we compare these two periods?
Again, the comparison has its limits.
When Michel Debré thinks up the constitution, he is convinced that relative majorities will be the rule.
Majority is believed to be an automatic consequence of the two-round majority vote.
However, for Michel Debré it was anything but obvious.
The two-round majority voting system and the one used during almost all of the Third Republic.
However, as we have said, the majority fact cannot even really be thought of under the Third Republic.
In 1958, the only hindsight that the authors have is that of assemblies without disciplined and stable majorities.
Therefore, they will strive to put in place all possible instruments to enable the institutions to deal with this situation.
Under the Third Republic, the government was not only responsible to the National Assembly, but also, in fact since 1896, to the Senate.
It is the latter who obtains the head of the Popular Front government.
The presidential dissolution is also theoretical;
both because since Jules Grévy the presidents have renounced it, and because it is conditional on the approval of the Senate.
The possibilities of overthrowing a government are multiple and can be the result of any session incident linked to the unfortunate declaration of an under-secretary of state.
The fourth tries imperfectly to come back to its faults.
By difficulty in reforming itself, it will fail.
In 1958, former chairman of the board, Pierre Pflimlin and Guy Mollet,
are part of the Constitutional Advisory Committee.
They are for example the ones who will inspire the famous article 49 paragraph 3. The Constitutional Council, the very restrictive procedure of motion of censure, the blocked vote, the presidential dissolution, the budgetary orders, etc., the constitution of the Fifth Republic is full of provisions aimed precisely at ensuring stability in the face of a fragmented assembly with regard to the past experiences of the Third and Fourth Republics.
There is therefore rather reason to be reassured over the next five years.
the constitution of the Fifth Republic is riddled with provisions precisely intended to ensure stability in the face of a fragmented assembly with regard to the past experiences of the Third and Fourth Republics.
There is therefore rather reason to be reassured over the next five years.
the constitution of the Fifth Republic is riddled with provisions precisely intended to ensure stability in the face of a fragmented assembly with regard to the past experiences of the Third and Fourth Republics.
There is therefore rather reason to be reassured over the next five years.
The duration and fall of the Third Republic are not only to be found in its institutions, but also and above all in the configuration of the partisan system.
Benjamin Morel
There is a very strong contradiction between the longevity of the Third Republic and its instability. How to explain this discrepancy?
Again, there are several Third Republics.
The first is stable, it is based on a classic liberal parliamentarism in which the notable who appears to be the most competent is elected in each constituency.
The Chamber of Deputies is the meeting of these competent and enlightened notables who must deliberate to define the general interest.
This system proved to be extremely efficient as long as the political and economic conditions allowed it to flourish.
The rise of Marxism, which saw the emergence of structured parties gradually replacing the old Radical Party, changed the situation.
If it hadn't been for the war, the Third would undoubtedly have known the emergence of a structured right-wing party in the wake of the leagues or a form of Gaullo-Bonapartism in the same way.
Institutionally, she
could not have managed such developments.
In other words, the duration and fall of the Third Republic are not only to be found in its institutions, but also and above all in the configuration of the partisan system.
We have seen that the same was true for the Fourth Republic.
It may be that tomorrow this is also what wins the Ve.
SEE ALSO
- Appeal of June 18: Would De Gaulle have convinced you to resist?