La Constitution de la 6e République

Citation

Richardson, J. (2006), "La Constitution de la 6e République", Foresight, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 79-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680610656219

1 Anyone for a new charter of government?

Throughout the world of rule by law, national constitutions traditionally have been drafted by constituent assemblies convened for that single purpose. It is not everyday, therefore, that a well known democratic parliamentarian (well‐intentioned, too, and non‐violent) agitates virtually alone to dissolve his government under its present, republican form, and start over with everything including a new constitution, but still within the republican context.

This is exactly what Socialist member of parliament Arnaud Montebourg did in France between 2003 and 2005, an effort that was officially debated during his (Socialist) party's assizes at the end of 2005. His book, co‐written with a constitutional analyst, The Constitution of the 6th Republic (France is currently in its fifth since the revolution of 1789) is subtitled “Reconciling the French with democracy”. This states concisely the volume's purpose: to give France a new constitution in the early years of the twenty‐first century. “The core of the political reactor” in France, claim the authors, “is no longer under control  … ” And, using another simile, they add, “we have to change the hard disk, recording other democratic programs that hereafter will permit France to overcome problems it can expect to face  … ”

Montebourg, a 43‐year old legislator from east‐central France believes, as do many French voters, that the current constitution allows the country's president too much authority, especially in matters affecting foreign relations and defense. The Fifth Constitution dates from its approval by referendum in October 1958; it has long been recognized, indeed, as an individualistic product of Charles de Gaulle, one that reflected faithfully his approach to how to run France – an authoritarianism that minority opponents have regularly branded “dictatorial” or worse. The constraints on the country's executive branch leave the prime minister with insufficient elbow‐room and inadequate authority as the first minister of government and state.

As to the real power of today's French legislative arm, Montebourg and co‐author Bastien François (a political scientist at the University of Paris I) affirm that “parliament is but an assembly of disciplined marionettes who have learned well which boots to walk in. Public debate no longer exists in our country … Parliament, stifled, is but a recording device for an overly powerful executive  … ” So they propose a new instrument of 104 articles instead of the current 92‐article charter.

It is a fact that 90 percent of the laws enacted by France's National Assembly originate with the government, and the authors' decrying of the legislator's impotence helps explain the strength in Paris and other cities of “the street”. A public demonstration, often led by the militant Confédération générale du travail, seems to have more effect than ordinary citizens' interest in, or their relationships with, their parliamentarians.

What Montebourg and François have accomplished, via their book, is a recasting of France's supreme legislative document article by article. Their projection includes revision of the constitutional authority of the government's highest financial‐audit watchdog, known in France as the Court of Accounts (la Cour des comptes). Their “Sixth Constitution” would effectively return much power, lost since the de Gaulle years, to the legislative branch – assuring more effective checks and balances against a presidency that they construe today as having far exceeded the scope and depth of governance intended by the Fifth Constitution.

A criticism of this book comes from a Socialist Party hopeful for the presidential elections scheduled for 2007, former minister of education Jack Lang. Lang would like to see his country's president directly censurable by Parliament and thus (theoretically) replaceable by the same authority. Another kind of criticism comes from constitutional commentator Guy Carcassone, writing in the center‐right newsweekly L'Express. His view is that today the prime minister is easily got rid of by simple resignation of the incumbent – which, of course, does not change the president's currently constituted authority in any way. The implication is, Why not leave things as they are?

What has happened to Montebourg's constitional ambitions? When the Socialist Party's annual assizes were held in November 2005, his designs were largely overlooked by party members and his C6R movement was sidelined. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic, they too decided, will do for the foreseeable future.

One way or the other, it must be said that critics Montebourg and François conceived an intriguing exercise in political foresight and planning. Their book could easily serve, elsewhere and “elsewhen”, as a guide for anyone aspiring to apply an available handbook for intelligent, democratic government to correct seriously – for instance – the plight of a failed state. Well‐intentioned revolutionaries take note!