Viewpoint. Our Republic is in a bad way: it’s drifting away from the people it should emanate from, and the people should always be, directly or indirectly, a key player, according to the former Secretary of State for the Budget.
By Christian Eckert
This post is intended as a warning. The experiences I have had do not give me any rights. They give me duties:
- first, to share the practical (and sometimes theoretical) knowledge I’ve acquired about the organization of powers, their effectiveness and their concentration.
- Secondly, I have a duty to sound the alarm about the risk of seeing the collapse of values we consider fundamental.
- Finally, it is our duty, with humility, to propose remedies or improvements to maintain, at worst, and improve, at best, the Republican spirit born of the history of our country, which has often been ahead of the rest in this respect.
Our Republic is in a bad way: it is drifting away from the people, of whom it should be the emanation, and the people should always be, directly or indirectly, a key player.
In France, a constitution, occasionally amended, governs the Republic’s operating rules. Adopted by a large majority in September 1959, it reflects the needs of an era corresponding roughly to the post-war period. At the time, power had to be strong and effective to rebuild the physical and political ruins created by the atrocities of world conflicts. Today, in a period that until recently seemed more peaceful, we forget that the vertical and sometimes even personal exercise of power excludes the people, who end up rejecting it all when times get tough.
Representing the people
This verticality of decision-making and public action is also reflected in the Government’s predominance over Parliament. I was an opposition MP, then a majority MP, and then a member of the Government. So I’ve been able to measure the importance, usefulness and capacity, from where I’ve been, to change things and represent the people. Without a doubt, I can say that our Republic, which claims to be parliamentary, (almost systematically) gives all powers to the Government.
The latter has at its disposal an arsenal of perfectly constitutional provisions to ensure that the construction of the law and its implementation are “in its own hands”: from the now better-known 49/3 to the setting of the agenda, via blocked votes , second deliberations, ordinances, referrals to decrees, the ill-fated and little-known Article 40 of the Constitution… Everything allows Governments to bypass Parliament at will. All governments have done this, whatever the balance of power in Parliament, even if it’s true that today’s context leads the current government to use it a lot, and certainly too much.
Widespread anti-parliamentarianism
How can we accept, for example, that at the beginning of 2024, just two months after having had a finance bill ratified by Parliament, the Government announces 10 billion in savings without even consulting Parliament (the only body to which the Constitution entrusts the decision we finance)? I could cite many similar examples under all governments, including those to which I belonged! It’s hardly surprising, then, that people question the usefulness of parliamentary assemblies, and that anti-parliamentarianism is so widespread…
Parisianism dominates
All the more so as Parliament suffers from not being representative: even if progress has been made on gender parity, an objective analysis reveals the many reasons why people have doubts about being represented in Parliament: After the ubiquitous bearded teachers of 1981, the so- called “civil society”, which we don’t even know what it means, has become fashionable. The liberal professions have often filled out the ranks, and I remember a debate on the “Hospital, Patients, Health, Territories” law where there were only doctors and pharmacists in the hemicycle, apart from the author of this post.
And what can we say about territorial representativeness: Parisianism dominates, and the excessive ban on multiple mandates has contributed to increasing it. Strict limits on the accumulation of indemnities would have been enough to moralize, even for the people, the emergence of local barons (black or not) who have often played the role of watchdog in the face of a power that is, on the whole, very Francilian. Socially and geographically, Parliament cannot be described as a national representative body. All the more so as those who should be deputies for the Nation prioritize the particular interests of their constituents over those of the Nation.
The need for constitutional reform
This observation, which can and should alarm us because it gives rise to anti-parliamentarianism and populism, leads us to seek and propose solutions. A major reform of the Constitution is essential. More than just an evolution, we need to build a constitutional revolution to put the people back at the heart of the Republic. Some speak of a 6th Republic… Semantics don’t count…
I advocate, and I know the drawbacks, a dose of proportional representation. Either by region, or by mixing (German-style) local and national deputies… And if proportional representation led to alliances to govern, it wouldn’t be useless. It could also encourage compromises that would avoid dangerous radicalism. The current “mess” created by a hasty dissolution and organized procrastination would perhaps be better managed.
And of course, a more representative Assembly must be able to decide freely on legislation and therefore set its own agenda, and be rid of articles 40 and 49/3 as well as the other technical devices that muzzle it today.
I call for an end to bicameralism
I’m also in favor of ending the bicameral system, which slows down and blurs the political message. Without necessarily going that far, we could at least bring the Senate’s role closer to that of the EESC, even if it means giving it a legislative role on a few major issues (constitutional, for example).
I don’t support the idea of citizens’ conventions. It’s too easy for them to be controlled by the powers that be, and if Parliament is to become representative, why provide it with a substitute drawn by lot?
In the age of the Internet and the Parliamentary Channel, how can we not trust the people to take control of the debates? To achieve this, we must undoubtedly broaden the scope of referendums and reduce the conditions for triggering one.
The School of the Republic
At the same time, if we are to give power more directly to the people, we need to provide the citizenship training that is so lacking today, within the École de la République. Such training would give young people the foundations they need to become more involved in civic debates. It could also restore the taste for living together that is fading today.
In short, genuinely proportional voting, a more representative assembly and powers genuinely entrusted to Parliament would oblige our democracy to work together, in the general interest, across all sensibilities respectful of republican principles.