EWhat if we were talking about constitutional reform? In a hectic public time, where many projects are open, that of a possible revision of the Constitution, or even a changeover to a VIe République, remains curiously closed, only interests a few eminent insiders, whereas it is the backbone of our political life.
The liberal essayist Gaspard Koenig kicks the anthill by proposing these days, in his new essay, Cons’un (Observatory editions), including Point publishes excerpts, to abolish the President of the Republic, at least in its current form, by limiting his function to that of “president of the chrysanthemums”, as we said under the IVe Republic. The reform of political institutions is also the subject of a major symposium which is taking place on October 5 at the Institut de France, which will bring together prestigious speakers, and in which the two former Presidents of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande. This delivers to Point the first of his reflections.
Point : Why is the institutional debate so little present in the public arena?
Francois Hollande : This question should have been a major topic of the presidential election, at least in the inter-round period, but the campaign was unfortunately skipped over, and not only on that. It’s a shame, because it would have been an opportunity to discuss possible institutional reforms and to shed light on the methods of government. Alas, the debate did not take place, and the changes announced remain limited to a few initiatives, in particular to expand participatory democracy or citizen consultations. Under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, the Balladur committee had prepared the constitutional revision of 2008. Thus were introduced the priority questions of constitutionality (QPC), which offered citizens a new right and extended the intervention of the Constitutional Council, since during a trial, any party, at any stage of the proceedings, may, under certain conditions, seize it. During my mandate, the High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life was created and the non-accumulation of mandates was established. But these reforms, as useful as they are, have not changed the foundations of the Ve Republic.
READ ALSOBernard Cazeneuve: his plan for the left
Does this seem important to you today?
There is what is a matter of practice and which does not call for legislative or institutional corrections, such as respecting the rights of Parliament or dialogue with the living forces. There is what can be caused by the absence of a majority in the National Assembly and which will require compromises on certain texts or the use of procedures such as article 49.3, at the risk of a vote of censure. Similarly, the dissolution of the National Assembly is not a theoretical hypothesis. It can lead to a wave like in 1968 or to a cohabitation like in 1997. In short, our Constitution makes it possible to settle situations of parliamentary instability.
On the other hand, institutional changes seem necessary to me. Some reflect within the framework of the Ve Republic and wish to improve the use of citizens’ initiative referendums (RIC) or provide a legal framework for citizens’ conventions. Others propose, in particular François Bayrou, to introduce proportional representation into the voting system, with the risk of no longer finding a majority in the National Assembly for lack of a possible coalition. Still others advocate with Jean-Luc Mélenchon the establishment of a VIe Republic, with the end of the election of the president by universal suffrage, or the maintenance of this method of appointment but depriving the Head of State of most of his powers, as if the people could be summoned to choose a president without any power.
There is therefore no longer a Prime Minister, all the binding procedures such as 49.3 are abolished and the right of dissolution disappears.
What if we returned to a pre-1962 mode of appointment, by abolishing the election by direct universal suffrage?
With a college of electors! But the president is not a super-senator! When de Gaulle exercised the function, it was de Gaulle: he had not needed in 1959 the anointing of the people. He was, he thought, the embodiment of it. Nevertheless, he pondered what would happen after him. He makes this clear in his Memoirs. This is why he initiated the reform of October 1962, ratified by referendum. It is an irreversible decision. Otherwise, it’s back to the IVe Republic without the major parties that existed at that time, or with more or less rationalized parliamentary regimes as in Germany or Spain. This formula [NDLR : l’ensemble des règles qui encadrent l’activité du Parlement et permettent d’éviter l’instabilité ministérielle] nevertheless obliges us to form coalitions to ward off the extremes, until the day when they become outlets for degagism.
READ ALSOCharles de Courson: “The Parliament of Oxen is over! »
But, as we can see now, it remains complicated to implement…
I am in favor of an assumed presidential regime. Today, the prime minister is no longer the majority leader; it does not come from a party, but from the Head of State. As a result, the parliamentary character of the Ve Republic has disappeared. With the exception of cases of cohabitation. With the five-year term, a shift took place in favor of the President of the Republic. From there, especially when the crises to be faced follow one another, the duality of the executive is a source of slowness and confusion, whatever the will of the protagonists. The hybrid nature of our institutions is neither effective for the management of the state nor comprehensible to public opinion. I propose that the president have all the executive power and coordinate the action of the administration and the ministers, with a Parliament that regains all its freedom. There is therefore no longer a Prime Minister, all the binding procedures such as 49.3 are abolished and the right of dissolution disappears.
The paradox is that the presidential system is an institutional system in which Parliament plays a major role: see the case of Congress in the United States. I will dissociate the duration of the presidential mandate and that of the legislative mandates. The president could be elected for six years, a renewable six-year term, and the deputies, four years. Mid-term elections would benefit from a higher turnout and provide political breathing space.
It is possible to act for the climate without including ecocide in the Constitution, for example.
What do you think of these demands to engrave a certain number of rights in stone in the Constitution?
The Constitution can guarantee freedoms, and it would make sense to include the right to abortion in order to preserve it. But let’s not put everything in the Constitution. The fundamental principles of the Republic already benefit from the protection of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council. It is possible to act for the climate without including ecocide in the Constitution, for example.
Are you in favor of increasing the use of citizens’ initiative referendums (RIC)?
Yes, provided that this possibility is limited to a few major subjects. The more you open up the referendum field, the clearer you need to be about its boundaries. Otherwise, you risk opening the door to all possible demagoguery and offering new opportunities for action to all pressure groups. It is not so difficult to obtain the signatures of 4 million citizens… Citizen voting in Switzerland does not correspond to our tradition of representative democracy.