The day after legislative elections that resulted in an Assembly without a clear majority, Emmanuel Macron asked Prime Minister Gabriel Attal to stay at Matignon “for the time being”, in order to “ensure the stability of the country” and therefore deal with current affairs. The beginning of a Belgian scenario? Not so sure. If our neighbours are used to periods without a full government (six months from 1987 to 1988, 19 months between 2010 and 2011, 22 months from 2018 to 2020), the differences with France are in reality numerous.
For L’Express, Pascal Delwit, Belgian political scientist and professor of political science at the Free University of Brussels, analyses the factors likely to complicate the task of a so-called “current affairs” government as well as that of a full-fledged government resulting from a coalition. “In the current state of affairs, I do not see how France will be able to get out of this without undergoing a thorough revision of the institutions of the Fifth Republic,” he judges. Interview.
L’Express: While waiting for the appointment of a new Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal’s cabinet will have to ensure day-to-day affairs. In Belgium, this system is not new. How does it manifest itself?
Pascal Delwit : The idea is that in the absence of a fully functioning government, the government in charge of current affairs will work on managing “daily” issues with a provisional budget that is issued each month at the amount corresponding to the same month for the previous year. The latter cannot, in fact, take new initiatives, unless the emergency requires it – an international crisis or exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic. The idea is to avoid paralysis of the country. But I prefer to tell you from the outset that this system risks provoking very different reactions and consequences in France.
Why is that ?
To begin with, in Belgium the idea that it might take some time to form a real government is well accepted: we have experienced three long periods without a government. in full operation since the 1980s, as in 2010-2011, when a government was formed only after 541 days of instability. And beyond the fact that the French do not have our experience in this area, your political culture values stability, so much so that the absence of a stable government could cause a major crisis of confidence and further aggravate social and political tensions. Not to mention the fact that the unitary and centralized nature of the French State risks greatly complicating the proper functioning of a provisional government…
Can this system not work without decentralization of power?
It will be difficult. Belgium is a federal state composed of regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels-Capital) and French, Flemish and German-speaking communities… Each federated entity has its own powers that are actually quite significant. For example, regional planning, public works, preventive health (vaccination campaigns), the field of basic education (from 3 to 18 years old), scientific research and even culture and sport… In fact, when Belgium does not have a fully-fledged government, even for a certain period of time, public policies are not at a standstill. Whereas in France, the regions have significantly fewer powers and autonomy. Whether it is a government of current affairs or a fully-fledged government, in the current state of affairs, I do not see how France will be able to get out of this without going through a thorough revision of the institutions of the Fifth Republic.
What do you mean ?
As I said, it will be difficult to truly govern without, for example, redistributing powers to the regions. But beyond this issue, your electoral system is also very different from ours. In Belgium, we operate with a proportional system, which allows several parties to work together (since it is difficult to obtain an absolute majority) and this favours the emergence of coalition governments.
Similarly, if we always manage (more or less quickly) to form a fully functioning government, it is also because, when the latter presents his program before the House of Representatives, he must obtain a vote of confidence from the majority of parliamentarians, but cannot – unlike in your country – be overthrown by a motion of censure. And, in any case, the French president has extremely important powers, whereas, in our country, the king has a more ceremonial role. One more element likely to hinder the action of the government.
During periods of governmental instability, the Belgian economy was not radically affected. Can France expect such a scenario?
Here again, the situation is very different. In our country, a large part of the public debt is held… by the Belgians (both by banks and by individuals)! This is an additional factor of stability and confidence for the markets and the rating agencies, which France does not have. Not to mention that our private debt is relatively low, and that economic development and foreign trade are the prerogative of the federated entities… The absence of a government therefore does not prevent the proper functioning of the economy as a whole. If we take the case of France, in the current context, the risk that the situation will get out of hand is significant since public finances are already in the orange and the rating agencies are on the alert. In the medium term, it will therefore be necessary to reduce public spending or increase tax revenues (or a bit of both), which a government of day-to-day affairs will not be able to do since France operates in a centralized mode.
To what extent is the legislative process affected in the absence of a fully functioning government?
The legislative machinery is generally slowed down, that is undeniable. The government of day-to-day affairs cannot launch bills (or only for questions of maintaining the public administration) but the House of Representatives can always make proposals – although they have little chance of passing in the absence of a clear majority. However, this is not a major factor of instability in that there is a kind of tacit code of good conduct in Belgium. While the various actors involved try to form a parliamentary majority, no one seeks chaos, there is no temptation to run away – and this, while we also have a radical right and a radical left party which were nevertheless quite strong during periods of political instability. But in Belgium, it is true, everyone talks to everyone, this probably makes the situation easier (laugh).
What consequences could lasting governmental instability have on French public opinion?
In Belgium, the longest period of government formation, which began in 2018 and ended in 2020, did not cause great concern among the population, probably because we are now relatively used to it, but also because the political forces that had to agree were not so polarized. Conversely, the period that lasted from spring 2007 to December 2007, which was much shorter, was quite traumatic for the Belgians. The points of view of the Dutch-speaking parties were so far removed from those of the French-speaking parties that there was a real fear of an implosion of Belgium, with mass demonstrations by French-speaking Belgians… But I believe that in your country, one of the factors likely to play a major role is the lack of a culture of dialogue and your Bonapartist tradition.
What do you mean ?
In Belgium, we are naturally wary of personal power and authority figures (in France, there is this imaginary of a “supreme savior”). Not to mention that the employers’ world, the unions, and even the parties are in permanent dialogue, the positions of each are not fixed – for example, no one would be shocked if the French-speaking fringe of the liberal party placed itself in opposition in Parliament, while the Dutch-speaking fringe of the same party would be in a coalition and vice versa a few years later. In your country, I struggle to imagine that the NFP would agree on a split without it creating major problems – even an alliance with the centre-left seems complicated. What I mean is that where we start from dialogue to evaluate our options, the French tend rather to start from their ideological repertoire and then choose who to talk to. Which is not exactly conducive to understanding or compromise with a view to forming a coalition. Yet this is the scenario that should legitimately be emerging for you.
On the evening of the second round results, Jean-Luc Mélenchon did not seem very inclined to compromise…
It is clear that Jean-Luc Mélenchon is an obstacle to the Belgianisation of France, but he is not the only one. Olivier Faure also immediately showed little inclination to form a coalition government. But these leaders should not forget that they also owe their “victory” to the displacement of individuals who are usually their political adversaries. Subscribing to a logic of “us against all” seems to me to be completely harmful. In a Belgian scenario, the centrist bloc of the NFP and the Macronists would, for example, ally themselves with the LR in order to form a relative majority. Here, everything happens as if the NFP were ignoring the results of the first round which, whatever one thinks of them, provided information on the state of French opinion and the strong right-wing anchoring of a part of the population. This, for a political scientist and for a Belgian, is disconcerting.
.