It was a blank weapon. It was brandished as a show of show, to show anger. A speech in the chamber, a vote lost in advance and then it’s gone. That’s how motions of censure lived under the Fifth Republic. Simple communication tools of the opposition facing an all-powerful executive. Parliamentary folklore, with one exception: the overthrow of the Pompidou government in 1962 to protest against the election of the President of the Republic by direct universal suffrage. Everything changed on July 7. The gun is now loaded. In an Assembly shattered like a puzzle, each government is condemned to live under the threat of a coalition of oppositions. The next executive is already on borrowed time.
Emmanuel Macron ruled out on Monday 26 August the nomination of the candidate of the New Popular Front (NFP) Lucie Castets to Matignon in the name of “institutional stability”. Such a government “would be immediately censored by all the other groups represented in the National Assembly”, judges the Elysée, which assumes the responsibility of constituting a parliamentary majority.
The NFP and the threat of immediate censorship
The Macronists, the right and the National Rally were in fact promising to bring down an NFP government including ministers from La France Insoumise. Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s gamble, which had opened the way to support without LFI’s participation in the executive, was not enough. The very existence of a left-wing government was too much for a large part of the hemicycle. In response to this announcement, the president of the LFI group in the Assembly Mathilde Panot is already threatening the censure of “any other Prime Minister” than Lucie Castets.
This presidential veto fuels a trial of authoritarianism of the head of state and his troops. Why deprive the NFP of power? Why promise to bring down an executive in gestation? Here is Emmanuel Macron portrayed as an “autocrat”, incapable of hearing the verdict of the ballot boxes. The left has a short memory here. In June 2022, LFI had called on Elisabeth Borne to submit to a vote of confidence in the National Assembly. Due to a relative majority, the Prime Minister refused. She then received her first motion of censure, despite her 245 deputies.
“There is a form of general immaturity”
Each has its own legitimacy. The “relative winner” of the ballot boxes called on his popular support to act. The “oppositions” boast of their right to form a majority of circumstances to remove an executive that they dislike. Arithmetic, a science with astonishing flexibility. “There is a form of general immaturity. I feel like I’m among teenagers,” laments an NFP deputy. Our institutions were designed for situations of absolute majority, everything is organized around the head of state. When he is demonetized and there is no absolute majority, everyone is lost.”
The configuration in the Assembly questions the very essence of the motion of censure. The Constitution governs its adoption process, but hardly ventures into the political arena. The law, nothing but the law. Is it an ordinary act of opposition or should it be marked by gravity? Can it be triggered against a government that has barely been appointed or should it be allowed to act before striking? It is up to the deputies to use this tool as they wish. Everyone starts from scratch, so much has the motion changed in relief. The innocent ritual is no more.
Now for the practical work. Here comes the eternal opposition between legality and legitimacy. What is in accordance with the law can be inopportune. Like overthrowing an executive on a whim. “A censure is a sanction for an action. We should not censure a government for what we assume it will be,” notes Jean-Jacques Urvoas, former Minister of Justice and professor of public law. “There is an element of solemnity in the motion of censure,” adds Aurore Bergé, resigning Minister Delegate for Equality between Women and Men and MP for Yvelines. By bringing down a government, we are participating in a form of institutional instability, as we know that it will be difficult to form a new one today. The pretext must be strong and seen as legitimate by our voters. I do not want to fall into the excesses of LFI for whom censorship had become a banal activity.”
“Last resort before returning to the people”
This “solemnity”, a consensual approach, is eminently subjective. Thus, the central bloc did not hesitate to portray LFI as an enemy of the Republic to justify a censure of a hypothetical NFP executive including rebellious ministers. The former majority saw this as a battle of values, while the left is skewering a fig leaf for the refusal of a left-wing policy. “The motion of censure was thought of as a last resort before returning to the people, warns Emmanuel Maurel, deputy of the communist group (GDR) of Val-d’Oise. In other European democracies, this occurs at the end of a long political crisis, after all other avenues have been sought and failed.” “Solemnizing” these divergences with the adversary is to legitimize the immediate use of nuclear weapons.
Parliamentarians are fumbling with this tool of unprecedented vigor. Be careful not to trivialize it. Be careful, too, not to hinder Parliament by activating it too often. Therein lies the ambiguity of the motion of censure under relative majority. Both a means of pressure from the legislative power on the executive, and an instrument for weakening Parliament. Doesn’t censure of a government also mean giving up on building compromises with other political groups? Doesn’t brandishing the threat of censure at any time prevent the regime from being parliamentarized by letting the deputies seek points of agreement? “The Pavlovian use of the motion of censure shows that we don’t want to play the game of parliamentarism. With this kind of spectacle, I’m not sure that the French want the Assembly to be the center of power,” believes Jean-Jacques Urvoas.
“We will have to go through aggression”
Customs die hard. To avert the threat of censorship, each camp must break with a majority culture specific to our institutions. The contradictions resurface. LFI advocates a parliamentary VIth Republic, but claimed a maximalist stance in the aftermath of the legislative elections. “The program, nothing but the program,” repeated the rebellious executives in chorus, despite their meager relative majority. The NFP never engaged in discussions with other groups to establish its base, at the cost of a few programmatic concessions. This ideological intransigence, a survival of the majority fact, exposed them to immediate censorship. “Since LFI only offered a marginal possibility of adjusting its program, it was logical that there would be censorship ab initiojudges a constitutionalist. But if a technical government is appointed and promises to seek agreements on measures, it would be less politically logical for it to be overthrown immediately.”
We are already thinking. Socialist MP Philippe Brun calls on the next Prime Minister to “negotiate a non-censorship agreement” with the other political groups, made up of “reciprocal commitments”. His proposal, made in a column published by The Worldhas attracted the attention of several executives of the central bloc. But is the Assembly mature enough for such diplomacy? “To arrive at a non-aggression pact, we will have to go through aggression”, judges the constitutionalist Didier Maus. Censor one or more executives, before coming to our senses. Parliamentarianism is not an innate art. Especially for elected officials brought up on the verticality of the Fifth Republic.
.