It is a sea serpent of the Macron presidency. The Head of State is determined to implement institutional reform, after an abortive attempt during his first five-year term. The President of the Republic multiplies the consultations. He will receive the main associations of elected officials on March 13 at the Elysée, after having exchanged with his predecessors François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy.
Certain parts of the reform imply a modification of the Constitution… therefore the agreement of the Senate. President of the centrist group in the upper house, Hervé Marseille is in favor of reform. He is in favor of a return to the seven-year term, the restoration of the accumulation of mandates and the introduction of proportional representation in the Assembly. But warns the executive: “The Senate is not intended to apply decisions taken unilaterally.” Interview.
L’Express: At the start of the year, Emmanuel Macron relaunched the institutional reform project. Is this a priority for you?
Herve Marseille: We must give meaning back to our institutions, which are not immutable. We have difficulty debating in France, as shown by the pension reform. But the practice of the executive has degraded the institutions. Its verticality in the exercise of power and its lack of consideration of intermediary bodies are in question. Finally, it has aggravated the dilution of power, which has its source in the creation of independent authorities, the growing influence of European authorities and jurisdictions. The government has completed this trend with the creation of citizens’ conventions and other “things” that have finished devitalizing the institutions. On this subject, the executive acts as an arsonist firefighter.
The executive wishes to look into the territorial division. The president of Renaissance Stéphane Séjourné says he is in favor of the “end of the large regions” to return to a “simpler and human-sized scheme to go back to the law brought in 2015 by François Hollande?
Let us remember the conditions for dividing regions at the time. This was done in a hurry on a corner of the table. The outline of new regions was unknown 24 hours before they were released. The impact of this law and the current functioning of the regions should be assessed. The press ensured at the time that this reform was to bring 55 billion euros to the State. I wonder if it didn’t cost that price (smile). But before considering a new one, let’s assess the consequences of this reform. This is the role of the Court of Auditors or parliamentary committees.
Reforming the regions is no small thing. Let’s try to understand its scope, what worked or not. Next, objective criteria must be established to improve the efficiency of the operation of the regions. Why move the perimeter of the regions? To attack this or that regional president? If we don’t want this to be a matter of political expediency, everything must be studied.
Should the number of territorial levels be reduced? Some advocate the abolition of departments, others of regions…
There are many levels. But the real subject concerns the skills and means that we give to the communities. They are less and less autonomous and have almost no direct revenue. The State takes over almost all of their financing, following the example of the abolition of the contribution on the added value of companies (CVAE). And afterwards, the State complains that they turn to him. But it is he who holds the purse strings! Leave them alone, give them freedom and the means to exercise their skills.
In 2021, the Senate adopted your bill authorizing the accumulation of a local executive mandate in a city of less than 10,000 inhabitants with a parliamentary mandate. Isn’t the return of multiple mandates illusory?
The establishment of a non-accumulation was a mistake: it created two types of elected officials, the nationals and those of the territories. We must connect the two, Emmanuel Macron, seems favorable to it himself. It is important for parliamentarians to be able to have a link with the territories and raise concerns on the ground. These local responsibilities allow the national expression of certain subjects. Beware of parliamentarians above ground!
You believe that this would paradoxically strengthen the weight of parliament…
At one time, parliamentarians could balance the weight of the executive through their local mandates. When the mayors of Marseilles or Lyon were in the Senate, they could influence decisions which seemed to them inappropriate for the territories. The deputies, when they are in the majority, are often elected by post-presidential breath effect. It would be necessary to return to deputies elected more because of their territorial existence.
The French seem to be in favor of non-cumulation…
The French often confuse multiple mandates and multiple allowances, even though they are capped. It should be explained that this is not the case.
On the constitutional level, the head of state seems open to the return of the seven-year term. Are you sensitive to this suggestion?
Personally, I am in favor of the return of the seven-year term. The quinquennium is too short. We are getting closer to the American system, with a permanent campaign. Reform takes time today, the legislative procedure is long. Our administration is of high quality, but is slow. Five years is a short time to move a case forward and observe its effects. I would like this seven-year term to be unique. Because a renewable president tends to be interested in the conditions of his re-election. But this is debatable, we must open the debate.
The return to the seven-year term would have the collateral effect of desynchronizing presidential and legislative elections. Is this a good thing?
Yes. This would strengthen the role of Parliament as a check and balance. We often hear today that it is necessary to check the temperature of opinion in France by organizing citizens’ conventions or referendums. If we shift the date of the legislative elections, we will have a state of opinion different from that observed during the current presidential-legislative sequence.
Are you in favor of reducing the number of parliamentarians, envisaged by the latest institutional reform?
This idea is paradoxical. The yellow vests have shown the need for proximity. It is therefore important to have parliamentarians close to the population and representative of their territory. And we are talking about a drop in the number of parliamentarians? I don’t know what the meaning of this proposition is. This measure must be effective and not a simple concession to anti-parliamentarianism.
This could be accompanied by a dose of proportional to the Assembly…
The centrists have always been in favor of the introduction of proportional representation. The principle suits me: proportional representation more closely embraces the diversity of sensitivities. But it introduces different political logics. With the majority vote, we agree beforehand. The Nupes was formed before the first round of the legislative elections. With proportional voting, everyone presents their lists and then coalitions are organized.
Is France culturally ready for this upheaval? The current National Assembly was elected by majority vote, but resembles a proportionally elected Assembly. Its operation is sometimes chaotic…
The politically “castrating” nature of majority voting has long been denounced. Today, the French have elected all the sensitivities of public opinion to the Assembly. The voting system was overwhelmed by the will of the French. What did the deputies do? Some of them play against institutions and self-mutilate.
You are thinking here of LFI. But the implicit and tortuous partnership between LR and the government is not a model of clarity either…
After so many years of absolute majority, parliamentarism must be learned. That takes time.
Certain aspects of institutional reform involve a revision of the Constitution. The latter requires Senate approval. Is this really possible? The Upper House has never made gifts to Emmanuel Macron on this subject.
The Senate has never been hostile to the dialogue and the proposed advances. We have been working since 2017 on the executive’s proposals and have developed some on our side. The latter did not wish to conclude. The Benalla affair and the yellow vests have something to do with it. But we were not far from an agreement. The Senate is not an obstacle, but it is not intended to apply decisions taken unilaterally.