He is one of those rare people who can answer the question that has become a “gimmick” of French politics: “Can we imagine General de Gaulle doing this, or saying that?” Arnaud Teyssier, historian, traveling companion of Philippe Séguin, and author of several works (the latest of which published by Perrin in September is entitled Charles de Gaulle. Anguish and greatness) analyzes for L’Express the unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves.
According to him, “in its absence of clarification and taking into account the result, the dissolution of June 9 was not very Gaullian”, contrary to what Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly repeated. The historian does not, however, spare opposition, recalling that in the spirit of our Constitution, the motion of censure which follows the use of 49.3 “only makes sense if the opposition is capable of offer an alternative. He warns: “By dint of destroying the institutions of the Fifth, and by dint of liquidating the good practices established since 1958, we will end up causing a regime crisis.”
L’Express: What, mainly, is the crisis we are experiencing a symptom of, according to you?
Arnaud Teyssier : Of a prodigious loss of understanding of institutions, both among those who govern and in opposition. We have lost “the codes” of the Fifth Republic, which is a fairly complex regime but with a simple and powerful logic, namely that a democracy must be governed. Because democracy, when it is weak, when it cannot make decisions, is exposed to all threats: external, internal, economic crisis, health crisis, diplomatic crisis, etc. So the idea of the Fifth is that France is always governed, and that it is democratically governed. For this, there is an institutional logic, with a strong executive, a rationalized Parliament, and tools that allow the executive to verify both its legitimacy and the support it has from the French people. So. But we no longer understand the meaning of our institutions, we no longer understand this regime, and this was illustrated in an edifying way with the motion of censure this December.
In what?
The mechanism of article 49 paragraph 3 is designed to ensure the stability of the government. The motion of censure, which can be tabled immediately, is Parliament’s recourse to overthrow the government. It is very difficult to obtain [NDLR : elle nécessite le vote de la majorité absolue des députés] and only makes sense if the opposition is capable of offering an alternative. In the idea of the constituents of 1958 – many of whom had suffered from the weaknesses of the Fourth Republic – the motion of censure in some way reversed the burden of proof: if you manage to overthrow the government, it must be to propose another government with a program, means of action, etc. The motion of censure at the beginning of December is almost constitutional vandalism. Two oppositions which have nothing to do with each other have united their voices, without being able to constitute an alternative majority.
The logic that prevailed on December 4 was the logic of parties, which de Gaulle precisely wanted to put an end to with the Fifth Republic. Is this a return to square one?
Absolutely. The way in which our deputies have just practiced the motion of censure was a Fourth Republic-style practice: it did not obey political objectives, but partisan objectives. Everyone asked themselves the question: “How can I ensure, with regard to my own electorate, with regard to the calendar, so that I present myself in the best conditions when the day comes, either in the legislative elections or for the presidential election? No one acted based on the country’s interest, at that moment, in overthrowing the government – knowing, once again, that for the moment we cannot propose a political alternative. This clashes deeply with the spirit of our institutions. We are in a political and cultural crisis, which may ultimately lead to a regime crisis. Because by dint of destroying the institutions of the Fifth, and by dint of liquidating the good practices established since 1958, we will end up causing a regime crisis.
Has the general interest been put in the background?
There is a wonderful word in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which is the word “obviously”. It appears in the article on the right to property, where it is said that the right to property can be restricted when public necessity “obviously” requires it. It is also a Gaullian word. The general said it in 1969, when he gave his last speech before the referendum. He said to the French: “If I am disavowed by a majority of you, solemnly, on this capital subject, and whatever may be the number, the ardor and the devotion of those who support me […]my current task as head of state will obviously become impossible and I will immediately cease to exercise my functions.” “Obviously” is the key to everything. There are obvious facts in politics. There, the obvious was – that we like or dislike the Barnier government – to ensure stability until further clarification is made possible.
How ?
Or by a new dissolution when it becomes possible again. Either by the constitution of an alternative opposition requiring negotiations and compromise. Or, possibly, by an early presidential election. I say “eventually” because we cannot count on it.
Many French people did not understand the dissolution of last June, which led to the situation we are in. Emmanuel Macron continues to justify it in the name of a Gaullian spirit of “return to the people”. Was she Gaullian?
I said earlier, there are two presidential means to get out of a political crisis: the referendum or the dissolution – by the way, de Gaulle clearly preferred the referendum. But, “obviously”, whether we choose one or the other, we must understand that afterwards, it has implications. There is a call for the responsibility of the president. So I’m not saying that Emmanuel Macron, because he somehow “lost” his dissolution, should have resigned: not everyone is obliged to do like General de Gaulle. But in any case, this should have led him to rethink his vision of things, to change his way of doing things more profoundly, etc. So to summarize, the dissolution was in accordance with the letter and even the spirit of the Constitution, but in its absence of clarification, and of taking into account the result, it was not very Gaullian.
The chosen “timing” was not very conducive to clarification…
Yes. For there to be a clarification, there would have to be a real campaign. However, Emmanuel Macron dissolved it hastily, just before the Olympic Games. There could be no campaign worthy of the name.
For several months, proportional does his comeback in public discussion and debate. Is this a relevant option to get out of the chronic crises we are going through?
In my opinion, the return to proportional representation would be dramatic and would have the effect of setting the current disorder in stone. The great advantage of the majority vote is to force political parties to make alliances, including programmatic alliances, before the elections. With proportional representation, the compromise and the “spirit of coalition” – which its supporters boast to us – are made behind the backs of voters, after the elections. Furthermore, I think that proportional is contrary to the spirit of the Fifth. The National Assembly is not intended to represent “the sociological composition” of the country, or even public opinion with its panels and segments. The majority vote – which is certainly not enshrined in the Constitution but which for me has become consubstantial with the Fifth Republic – is there to express a profound movement in the electorate. There is this idea that when the voter is in the voting booth, he forgets that he is a man or a woman, that he comes from a particular social background, that he has a particular sexual orientation, etc. The voter has something that goes beyond the individual. He is a citizen, who makes his choices. The majority vote is intended to bring this to light.
The majority vocation of politics in democracy is fundamental. But we have the feeling, today, of being faced with a society so fractured that we wonder if the majority project is still achievable…
I think it is achievable provided that political parties are able to restore their identity. That is to say, ideas, projects, lines of belief that can lead to support… It is striking how, on a global scale, most democratic governments give people the feeling that they are not can no longer do much. Because of globalization. Because of the treaties. Because of standards, etc. As the political scientist Yves Mény explains very well, democracy is initially based on a kind of accepted frustration: the sovereign people agree to delegate their sovereignty to representatives. In return, he is promised protection, well-being, progress for all, etc. Today, people have the impression that the counterpart has been eroded too seriously. And so the frustration becomes intolerable. It is a global phenomenon, but in France, more particularly. Because the French attach a lot of importance to being governed with a certain authority. It’s paradoxical for a people who have made revolutions – who have made several revolutions even – but that’s how it is, and that’s what de Gaulle felt. The French right is paying dearly for having forgotten it… This is what Philippe Séguin called the “degaullization of the right”.
When is it from? Of the Treaty of Maastricht (against which Séguin had fought)?
Yes, and it accelerated with the creation of the UMP. Before, there were a certain number of fundamentals which were inherited from Gaullism: the nation as the basis of sovereignty, liberalism corrected by a cult of the State – the social, planning State, etc. All this was thrown out the window in the 2000s, with the UMP. There was a sort of hollowing out by the center, and the right became a Euro-centro-liberal thing which lost its identity. For me, the right has allowed itself to be won over by a sort of “chic Poujadism”, which claims that all our ills come from an obese State, etc. This is what the National Front actually thrived on. Marine Le Pen skillfully understood that it was necessary to reinvest the theme of the strong State, the social State, the State which guarantees security, etc.
For years, the RN has been the only party forced to have a second round logic (the others can be content to go first, and be elected thanks to the Republican front). This led the RN to work towards a majority aspiration, particularly in its posture. However, there, with the vote of censorship, Marine Le Pen showed herself to be a politician, partisan, calculating…
Clearly. In 2022, through certain speeches, certain postures, Marine Le Pen sought to take a very “Fifth Republic” pose – which was a very clever way of completing the great stripping of the right. But I have the impression that as the RN becomes larger and, therefore, heterogeneous, this intuition becomes diluted. In my opinion, the RN is showing that it is ideologically incoherent, saying at the same time that the State spends too much, that pension reform must be scrapped, etc. They talk all over the place. This is perhaps linked to the too rapid growth of its parliamentary representation, or to the fact that the ideas are not structured, or even that the personalities are not structured either… In any case, I think that in this moment, they show that they have not really become a government party.
.