It is useful to get laws passed when you only have a relative majority, because instead of needing an absolute majority to get the law voted in, you need only to be able to deny that absolute majority to the opposition.
Of course, it can be abused as it was this time, to short circuit debate, but it is explicitly seen as an abuse, so, in essence, it works as an "exceptional" procedure. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
All part of the anti-Parliament, anti-parties line on which the constitution was written.
But, broadly, Parliament's powers need increasing relative to the presidency. The PM and major ministers should be deputies, not just presidential appointees.
I think really major changes would require a referendum.
See Wikipédia (French).
(Not a query concerning girth).
Particularly when it is "convention, custom and peer pressure" that is the main defense against abuse. As we've seen in the US and the UK a determined, media savvy government can run roughshod over such implicit restraints.
