Discussion #5
Simon Kaufman
Since France
adopted its current constitution in 1958, it has been amended 24 times with the
first amendment coming in 1960 and the most recent one being put into effect in
2008. One of the constitution’s major amendments, and coincidentally one I came
across when looking into our last discussion question, is the 15th amendment,
which limits the president’s term to five years. The amendment, referred to as
the quinquennat, was originally
proposed in 1973, but it didn’t gain enough traction to pass until nearly three
decades later, entering law on October 2, 2000 (French Constitution, 2008).
This amendment,
in terms of the changes it made, is very straightforward. It changed the
president’s term from seven years to five years. However, the implications that
this change had, and the reason for amending the previous term length, are more
complex. By shortening the president’s term by two years, the amendment
fundamentally reorganized governmental power (Duhamel, 2001). The President
oversees all aspects of government, including the National Assembly. Prior to
the amendment, members of the National Assembly were elected every five years,
whereas the President was elected every seven (French Constitution, 2008). France
was rare in that it had two separate elections to determine the government. As
you can imagine, this complicated the process. As a result, government often fluctuated
with different parties frequently trading power. If a new National Assembly was
elected with a majority that opposed the sitting president it created
cohabitation in which the parliament and the president were from different
parties. As a result, just like in a split American government, cohabitation
made it harder to successfully govern (Duhamel, 2001).
This
amendment was necessary mainly because the original idea of a five-year cycle
for the National Assembly and a seven-year term for the president was
nearsighted, and as aforementioned, it also helped to eliminate cohabitation.
As a result of presidential elections and parliamentary assemblies being
aligned, French government functions more efficiently and encounters fewer
problems with cycles of split government. Also, it should be noted that the
people of France voted on this amendment and that 70 percent voted to amend the
seven-year term. While people may have voted to put both the Presidential and
National Assembly elections on the same cycle, it also may indicate the French
people’s willingness to vote for their leaders more often, and this is another
reason why the amendment was necessary. By voting for the president every five
years instead of seven, it essentially gives the French more power to have
influence in the political process by voting more times in their lifetime
(Duhamel, 2001).
Amending
this part of the constitution was relatively easy because of its specificity.
In the original constitution, Article 6 specified very clearly that the
“President of the Republic shall be elected for seven years” (French Constitution,
2008). As a result, there was no debate over the interpretation of a
president’s term. Had requirements regarding a president’s term been more vague
and capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, then it might have required
legal change and been more difficult to amend (McElwain, 2014).
Duhamel,
O. (2001, March 1). France's New Five-Year Presidential Term. Retrieved
November 18, 2014, from http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2001/03/france-duhamel
McElwain, K. (Director) (2014, November 18). Explaining
Constitutional Durability. Political Science 337. Lecture conducted from
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Welcome to the english webpage of the French National Assembly.
(n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2014, from
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/
Amber Talaski
ReplyDeleteNice work on the 15th amendment! That was definitely an amendment that reshaped in a way how French politics are carried out. The first cohabitation in 1997 undoubtedly led to uneasy distributions of power within the government, with the prime minister Jospin citing that the atmosphere was “both serious and relaxed, no excesses” (Whitney, 1997). It is no surprise that it eventually became desired to eliminate cohabitations through constitutional amending of the presidential term limit. This will hopefully stay a desired change throughout the duration of this constitution’s hold.
Another change to the constitution that I consider important is the amendment in 1974 to alter the Constitutional Council. This amendment made provisions so that laws and treaties could be submitted to the Constitutional Council before ratification to ensure that they comply with the Constitution. This in turn allows the Council to nix any submissions that they deem to be in opposition with the Constitution (Neuman, 2012:268). This particular amendment also adds on to who can refer something to the council, thus expanding it to include any group of 20%+ parliamentary deputies. This was intended to allow minority groups in parliament to be able to challenge governmental action that they thought infringed upon their rights (Ginsburg, 2008: 1). In the drafting of this amendment, the political implications were expected to be very minimal when in actuality this radically changed the procedure for determining constitutional compliancy. It also allowed for minorities to possess more of an influence over ensuring that actions carried out by the government were constitutional.
Citations:
Ginsburg, Tom. Comparative Constitutional Review (2008): 1-4.
Neuman, Gerald M. "The Brakes That Failed: Constitutional Restriction of International Agreements in France." Cornell International Law Journal 45 (2012): 257-365.
Whitney, Craig R. "An Uneasy First Encounter in France's Political 'Cohabitation'" The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 June 1997.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJackie, Siu Hei WONG
ReplyDeleteAs the leader post has conducted a comprehensive analysis on the impact and background of the 15th amendment of the French constitution, I would rather like to shed new light on the 1962 amendment, which fundamentally changed the presidential electoral method and brought far-reaching implication to French constitution and political institution thereafter.
After De Gaulle reformed the government to solve the crisis of Algeria, by introducing a strong president into the French constitution in 1958 to replace the almost solely consensual political model (1), de Gaulle in 1962 brought another amendment introducing direct election of president. Before 1962, French presidents were elected by an electoral College composed of 80000 elected officials, this amendment, according to Martin Rogoff, was to make the president only own his or her office to people alone due to the direct election, which fulfilled De Gaulle’s desire that the president serves as the representative of France and is superior to political parties (2). Moreover, this amendment unprecedentedly introduced the two-round running off system (1), also gave the president more legitimacy as the president would get at least 50% voters’ support. In short, it is apparent that the 1962 amendment actually continued De Gaulle’s blueprint in establishing a strong executive political model.
Although this amendment was controversial in whether De Gallue could initiate a referendum for constitutional amendment, this amendment finally got more than 60% voter support. This amendment in further transforming the constitution from a consensual model to a more majoritarian model. In elevating the change of French political institution, the 1962 amendment indeed should not be neglected.
References:
(1) Skach, Cindy (2009) Borrowing Constitutional Designs pp. 77, 97-107
(2) Martin, A Rogoff (2011) Fifty Years of Constitutional Evolution in France: The 2008 Amendments, Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1793210
Sara Lilley
ReplyDeleteThe previous posters did a great job talking about the amendments made regarding articles 15, 89 and other changes to the political system. However, I will focus on more different amendment for the constitution. This major change to the constitution was an addition into its preamble, the Environmental Charter. The Environmental Charter, which was made in 2004, which recognized the fundamental rights and duties regarding French citizens and the protection of the environment (1). Two committees, one legal, worked this change, and another was scientific. This is different than the previous posters because not only were politics involved, but also the scientific community. A series of public meetings throughout France raised the opinion of citizens regarding various themes throughout the charter.
The process was that the President of the Republic at the time, Jacques Chirac, submitted the text to the National Assembly and senate in 2004. Parliament in 2005 approved this change with 531 votes to 23 and the draft law introducing the charter was put into the constitution (1). The charter provides the constitution with levels of principles that already existed in the legislative level, but gained strength through this change. One of which was an ecological responsibility that made the people who pollute pay that, before, was not expressly recognized. In addition, there are the 10 articles that outline environmental rights and responsibilities of the French people that varies from rights to access information about the environment, to an obligation on the political leaders’ part to promote sustainability (2). The controversial Environment Charter, initiated by President Jacques Chirac, will enshrine the right of all French people to "live in an environment which is balanced and respects their health.” (3) President Chirac called on MPs to support a "superior interest ... which was more important than ordinary laws". The prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, also agreed and said: "It is very important that France shows itself to be the conscience of the planet,"(4).
It is interesting because the U.S constitution contains no explicit environmental reference (2). One of the reasons that maybe the U.S does not have environmental rights is because of lobbyisits, and people’s interpretation of laws, for example. However, as discussed in other posts, the French government maintains high degrees of control over legal entities and the Constitutional Council. They review laws and have more direct control not easily as accessible to the public.
My Sources:
1. Marrani, David. "Human Rights and Environmental Protection: The Pressure of the Charter for the Environment on the French Administrative Courts." Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Fall 2009, 52-57, 88.
2."French Constitution Gets a Dash of Green." Grist. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. .
3. "Charter for the Environment." Constitutional Council -. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. .
4. "Chirac Plans To Put Environmental Issues In Constitution." Chirac Plans To Put Environmental Issues In Constitution. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCharlene Zhang
ReplyDeleteThanks for Simon’s analysis of the 2000 amendment of the French Fifth Republic constitution! Simon suggests the necessity of this amendment that shortening the presidential period from seven to five years may strengthen the rationalization of the French democracy by giving voters more opportunities to vote. I want to respond to this idea of French democratic rationalization by incorporating some articles in the 2008 amendments (http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr).
In addition to reducing two years of presidential term in the 2000 amendment, Article 3 of the 2008 amendments adds that the President of the Republic may not exercise more than two consecutive periods in office. I interpret this constitutional revision as further rationalizing the French democracy by keeping the vigor and robustness of the executive. Also according to Article 5 of the 2008 amendments, “the power of appointment of the President of the Republic shall be exercised after public notice of the relevant standing committee in each assembly.” I maintain that this revision of checking the previously unencumbered presidential power is to balance the political powers between the executive and the legislative branch, therefore enhancing democratic rationalization.
On the surface, both the 2000 amendment and the 2008 amendments seem to speed the democratization in France; however, Lerougetel and Lantier offers a critique of these seemingly democratizing amendments in “France: Constitutional Reform Strengthens Presidency.” They argue that the presidential power has actually continued to amplify, and it is surely not a representation of a solid democratic rationalization. For example, the presidential power compared with the power of parliament has in fact extended after the 2000 constitutional reform. They argue that because legislative elections take place every five years, right after the presidential elections, “the president is virtually guaranteed to begin his term with a majority from his own party, especially as the winning party receives extra seats in parliament.” Also, despite giving only limited increase of power to the parliament in Article 3 of the 2008 amendments, “the net effect of the reform is to strengthen the already powerful office of the presidency” under Sarkozy’s administration. They argue that this constitutional revision during Sarkozy’s presidency is to dismantle the post-war welfare state rather than to rebalance the political power. Lerougetel and Lantier’s critique of the previous constitutional amendments prompts me to delve into deeper effects of these revisions behind their literal meanings.
Works Cited
Lerougetel, Antoine and Alex Lantier. “France: Constitutional Reform Strengthens Presidency.” World Socialist Web Site, 9 Aug. 2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. < http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/08/fran-a09.html>
Articles of the 2008 Amendments