The charter also asks candidates to follow principles of “ethics” and “moralisation of public life”, such as leaving social housing “as soon as possible” if they no longer meet the eligibility criteria. The candidates also undertake “to put in place ambitious policies in terms of inclusion, the fight against discrimination and equality between women and men”, to “defend secularism within the strict framework of the law of December 9, 1905” and to “integrate the issues of ecological transition in a transversal way in all their reflections”.
However, article 27 of the Constitution specifies that “any imperative mandate is null” and that “the right to vote of the members of the Parliament is personal”. The site of the National Assembly specifies that “this means that the deputies determine themselves freely in the exercise of their mandate” and “that no injunction to act in this or that direction can be addressed to them”.
An unconstitutional charter?
No, according to Michel Lascombe, professor of constitutional law at Sciences Po Lille: “There is nothing imperative, promises only bind those who believe them. Rather, they are commitments of principle. »
However, the presidential majority charter also specifies that the candidates must “support the new measures that were proposed during the campaign”, which induces voting discipline. “It is marked that they must support and not vote in favour, so they can abstain, be absent at the time of the vote and nothing prevents them during their mandate from leaving the parliamentary majority and saying that they are going to create a new group”, analyzes Michel Lascombe.
According to the constitutionalist, the imperative mandate must be understood as a political mandate during which the deputy must resign – on the orders of his party or his electors – if he does not respect his promises. “If the party demands the resignation of his mandate – not of the group – of a deputy who would not have voted in favor of the party, the deputy should refuse because this request would be contrary to the Constitution”, specifies Michel Lascombe.
In 1998, the Constitutional Council ruled on a written declaration presenting the main political, economic and social orientations of their action imposed on candidates for the presidency of a regional council. He had then considered that this obligation “cannot be regarded as conferring on the mandate of the president of the regional council, any more than on that of the other members of the council, an imperative character” and that therefore it was “not contrary to the principle on which article 27 of the Constitution is based.
Charters adopted by other parties
This is not the first time that a party requires its candidates to sign a charter of principles and commitments. In 2017, La France insoumise also drafted a charter for its candidates. This imposed in particular to “respect the group’s voting discipline when a collective decision has been taken in accordance with the Common Future program”.
During the National Council of Republicans on Saturday, a “charter of clarity and independence” was adopted. The candidates for the legislative elections and the party executives who sign it undertake “not to stand as a candidate under the colors of the President of the Republic nor to support his project for a legislative majority”, but also to “not join forces or support the project of any party that does not respect our values”.
Candidate commitment charters therefore still have a bright future ahead of them.