Charlene Zhang
The institutions
identified in the Constitution of France are showing both features of majoritarian
and consensual model, with more emphasis on majoritarian characteristics in the
early period of the constitution of French Fifty Republic. The Preamble of its
constitution claims the adherence to the fundamental rights such as freedom and
liberty of man mentioned in declaration of 1789, and it also affirms a series
of property rights and French Union in the Constitution of France in 1946. From this Preamble, the general unification of the republic makes its majoritarian features more noticeable.
The executive
section of the constitution of France is largely majoritarian. The new
constitution strengthens the executive of president’s power at the expense of
parliament, and therefore affirming the privileges of the president and showing
one of the prototypes of majoritarian model—the concentration of executive
power. However, one may argue that the French Parliament is having a bicameral
legislative of the republics, having both the Senate and the National Assembly,
therefore denoting an important feature of consensual model. I argue that even
though there exists the bicameralism in government authority, the asymmetry
between two houses makes the national assembly have more power. Therefore, in
this sense, France is keeping to a majoritarian model because the house of the
National Assembly has been granted a monopoly of power.
From the
analysis of electoral system in France, I argue that France is denoting more
features of the consensus model. According to Lijphart in Patterns of Democracy, France has a proportional representation
(Lijphart, 133), which signifies its consensual characteristic. Also, article 6
of the constitution of France specifies that the President of the Republic will
elected by direct universal suffrage, representing both majority and minority
groups. Even though the president was initially elected by an electoral
college, but in 1962 de Gaulle was proposing that the president be directly
elected by the citizens, and this marked the actual moment of implementing
propositional representation.
With the regards
to division of power, France is leaning towards to the majoritarian model.
According to Lihphart, France is categorized into a “unitary and centralized”
government, which is similar to that of United Kingdom (178). The unitary and
centralized government wields much political power and affirms the overriding
significance of central sovereignty. As it is mentioned in the executive section, the asymmetric bicameralism in French constitution is thus centralizing more power to the executive branch.
In conclusion,
the institutions of French constitution are in between majoritarian and
consensual model, but with more emphasis on majoritarian characteristics. In
the Title II of constitution, the presidential powers are listed in detail.
With the President’s power of appointing the Prime Minister and terminating the
Prime Minister, the executive branch seems to be largely dominated by the
President. This resonates with the fundamental feature that Lijphart brings up
that France is a unified and centralized government, and it in this sense following
the majoritarian model. Yet, at the same time, the significant element of
consensual model is identified in French constitution—propositional representation,
making it perfect for a diverse group of people.
Works Cited
Lijphart, Arend.
Pattern of Democracy: Government Forms
and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press, 2012.
Print.
Constitution of
France 1958 (rev, 2008). https://www.constituteproject.org/search#?q=France&cons_id=France_2008
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Jackie) WONG, Siu HEi
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent, I agree with the leader post that the French constitution indeed is pretty close to the majoritarian model. However, in terms of the president’s power at executive branch, I would also like to add several points to argue why French constitution is more in between a majoritarian and a societal system.
As the leader post stated, I agree that the French Constitution favors the power of president heavily. On Article 9, the French president is granted with the right to preside over the Council of Ministers. The French president also has the right to dismiss the National Assembly in accordance with Article 12. On Article 8, presidents also enjoy the right to appoint and terminate prime ministers. In this regard, it is obvious that the French constitution favors the presidential power, which makes the French Semi-Presidential system closer to a centralized majoritarian system.
Yet, the French authority government actually does not always enjoy a centralized government as the Great Britain. Albeit the French executive power vested heavily in the president, since he or she may appoint the prime minister from his or her own party, occasionally, French presidents were forced to appoint prime ministers from other parties. This phenomenon called “cohabitation” has strongly diminished the presidential power (Gallager, Laver & Mair, 2011). Since 1986, the France has experienced server periods of cohabitation. The most typical example was in 1986, when the President Mitterand won the presidential election but only got a small size of majority in parliament, he was forced to appoint the prime minister from opposition party, until he got another victory in the 1988 parliamentary election (Clark, Golder & Golder, 2009).
The points I add above show that it is not a clear-cut that the French executive structure solely represents a majoritarian model. On the other hand, the phenomenon of cohabitation has make the French constitution in between a majoritarian and a societal model.
References:
Constitution of France 1958 (rev, 2008). https://www.constituteproject.org/search#?q=France&cons_id=France_2008
Clark, W, R. Golder, M. & Golder, S, N. (2009) Principles of comparative politics, pp. 450-451
Gallagher, M. Laver, M. & Mair, P. (2011) Representative Government in Modern Europe pp.188
I agree that France's constitution has proved a bit tricky in terms of classifying it as either a purely majoritarian or consensus model. Previous to examining the actual constitution, and having a surface level knowledge of French politics, I first thought that France might embody the consensus model. France's president's name comes easily to mind whereas I had to research further to figure out who the prime minister was. Many political parties seek office, and gain a relative amount of the vote and representation, as opposed to a completely bipartisan system.
ReplyDeleteHowever, upon further inspection of the constitution, it seems to me that the text of the constitution sets the stage for a bit more of a consensus model government, even if in reality it does not wholly follow this framework. For example, Article 1 proclaims that a state principle is "organized on a decentralized basis". Many argue that this is not necessarily how it works in practice, but theory promotes not becoming too centralized. In addition, Article 24 sets the design for a bicameral legislative system, once again depicting a consensus model. Article 4 ensures the “pluralistic expression of opinions and the equitable participation of political parties and groups”. It protects their right to form freely, as the heart of sovereignty lies with the people.
All in all, it would be unwise to declare France as either purely majoritarian or consensus. The actual constitution of France seems to set the framework for more consensus model institutions, whereas the actual institutions that have emerged in modern day France appear to hold more majoritarian ideals.
Response
ReplyDeleteSimon Kaufman
While I agree that France presents a unique situation in which its constitution exhibits both consensual and majoritarian features, I believe the crafters of the document should have been careful to be more consistent in their language throughout. In the very first article they say that they government should be decentralized, however, they then go on to give an immense amount of power to the president. As a result, I think that based on the setup of the executive power it could be argued that the writers truly hoped for a more majoritarian model of government. Articles 8, 9, 12 and 13 give the President the ability to appoint the Prime Minister and other members of government, have power ruling over the Council of Members, dissolve the National Assembly, and sign the Ordinances and Decrees for the Council of Ministers, respectively. These abilities all contribute to extremely strong and centralized presidential power — a key feature of the majoritarian model.
Practice aside, in theory, the executive branch portrays a majoritarian model. This contrasts with parts of the constitution which promote a much weaker, decentralized government. For example, the constitution outlines a bicameral Parliament with the Senate and National Assembly included. It also has proportional representation — both features more commonly associated with a consensus model.
Because of the writers’ decision to have a very strong executive, but other institutions that are weaker, it ultimately makes for a constitution that lacks a distinct majoritarian or consensual identity. As a result, it is easy to see how intergovernmental conflict could potentially arise with each side feeling as though their role should be more expansive.
References
Constitute. (n.d.). Constitute. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from https://www.constituteproject.org/search#?q=France&cons_id=France_2008
Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
ReplyDeleteAs the previous posters noted, that French Constitution is indeed a complex one with elements of both Majoritarian and consensual elements. When the fusion of power occurs, the president has the power to control some of the decisions and activities of parliament; however, the parliament does not have the ability to control the activities or decisions of the executive branch. In addition, there seems to be a lack of separation of power and an imbalance system of check and balances. Under Title 11, article 5 of the constitution, it states that (1) The President of the Republic ensures compliance with the Constitution and (2) The president is the guarantor of national independence, the integrity of the territory, and observance of treaties. However, just recently, France experienced excessive powers of the executive by Sarkozy announcing policies and proposal without even consulting his advisers However, the constitution amendment passed in 2008 placed a limit to maximum presidential terms, a move that is expected to reduce the power of the executive over the legislature and the judiciary. This is demonstrated as the Majoritarian aspect; however, there is the consensual elements that play a huge role in the French political system. One of them being that there is the Judicial review. Article 68, states that The High Court is presided by the President of the National Assembly. It gives its ruling as to the removal from office of the President, by secret ballot, within one month. Its ruling takes effect immediately. This shows the different branches affecting each other. This also helps to show that article 5 of the constitution, as noted earlier, is taken serious. In addition to the judicial and executive aspects of the constitution, there is The French parliament which is made up of two chambers; the national assembly and the senate . This is an important feature of a consensual system of democratic governments. As stated through the previous commentators, Although, there are element of the French political system that reflect the consensual system of governance majority of the elements represents a majoritarian governments.
My Bibliography
Kesselman M. & Krieger et al (2009), Introduction to Comparative Politics (5th Ed), Houghton Mifflin: NY,
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/fr00000_.html
Kesselman M. & Krieger et al (2009), Introduction to Comparative Politics (5th Ed), Houghton Mifflin: NY,
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/fr00000_.html
Lijphart A. Patterns of Democracy, Yale University Press: New Haven—chapter 8