Display:
In France it's closer to the US than to a purely parliamentary democracy like the UK. Just as the US president chooses the members of the executive (though there is no Prime Minister or similar coordinating position), the French pres chooses a PM ...  The PM doesn't have to be elected -- Villepin holds no electoral mandate, for example. He was a close advisor to Chirac at the Elysee Palace before being appointed... Yes, of course Villepin would disappear the day the president left office...

So it is more akin to the America VP, who is head of the Senate and also goes about doing foreign policy things, yet who is chosen by and comes along with the President, a package deal. ?  (Obviously there are differences, but a PM in France is obvioulsy is not = to a PM in the UK.)

Your questions aren't ignorant American... Ask away if you have more...

Thanks. Would Chirac need to oust Villepin simply for the sake of the party?  And how exactly would it hurt Sarkozy's chances of becoming President if he were appointed PM?  Seems like a vote of confidence to me...


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 11:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The difference with the American Veep is that s/he is elected on a ticket with the pres. As you know, the Veep exercises more or less power. Cheney is very much on the more side.

In fact, there is no equivalent in the American constitution to the French PM. Or imagine that, when the president appoints the Sec of State, of Defense, the Attorney General, etc, he also appoints a coordinator of executive activity. Sounds stupid because the president is in fact (with more or less help from the Veep) that coordinator.

My personal view is that the French system on this point is full of BS. The PM is there to support a polite fiction, which is that the president is above the fray and doesn't mind the shop. The PM's work is real, but his main function is to make it look as if things are getting done, and to take the rap if not. He is often a lightning conductor for the president -- he gets fired when things go wrong, the president sails on regardless.

That leads to an answer about whether it's a vote of confidence to be appointed PM. Yes. But it's a very risky position. Ideally, a presidential candidate would want to keep away from it. (So why did Villepin take it on? No doubt because he has a high opinion of his ability to make France fall in love with him [his actual words on this seem to have been more buccaneering...])

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 11:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, he had me in love with him for awhile... ;)

Thanks for clearing the rest up, it makes much more sense now.  I was confused about the chief executive appointing someone to ... coordinate the Executive.  But I suspected it served the function you described. (Jerome's diary also made that point.)

FYI, the US VP is on the ballot, but I'm not aware of any election in which the elected VP was not on the same ticket as the elected President...  It's a given that when voting for a Presidential nominee, you are also voting for their VP.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 11:52:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the VP being on the ballot... Note how the legal details of the US (vice)presidential election, the practical details and the voter/media perception differ, just like they differ in Europe.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 11:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The US VP analogy is possible but potentially confusing since for it to be more accurate you'd have to imagine the VP as representing the senate majority (actually it would have to be the congressional majority) not necessarily the president's party or choice. France had many years of "cohabitation" governments in which the president was from the right or left and the PM was from the opposite party which was the ruling majority in parliament. Presidential terms in France were for 7 years up until 2001 when they were reduced to 5 years. This was plenty of time for the electorate to decide they had had enough and change the parliamentary majority thus forcing a cohabitation government.

The brookings institute's web site has an article by Olivier Duhamel, Professor of Constitutional Law and Political Science at Sciences Po Paris, that discusses the French electoral system and provides this graph of the 5th republic presidents and prime ministers illustrating the cohabitation of red and blue:

by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:14:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Terrific table, Alexandra. Of course, too, you're right that the PRF (Président de la République Française) does have to take the parliamentary majority into account in appointing a PM, or it would be impossible to govern. This is not a written obligation, however, it's a convention the precedent for which was set by Mitterand in 1986.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Does the President have to submit the PM to the approval of the Parliament, and/or can the Parliament introduce a vote of no confidence against the PM? The president does not get to dissolve the assembly for a whole year.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not a convention, it's a very hard political fact that the majority in parliament can "censor" the government (motion de censure) and thus get rid of a PM it doesn't like.

The only convention Mitterrand put in place was to choose the legitimate leader of the other camp as PM, rather than imposing a less "natural" candidate of that camp to cause infighting.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In my language, if it's not written into the constitution it's a convention. Conventions take hard political facts into consideration. That's often how they come about or how they evolve.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think just using the word convention without qualifying it can be confusing. There are more or less flexible conventions and this would fall in the not-very-flexible-at-all-if-you-want-to -govern conventions because of Parliament's power to vote a "motion de censure".

BTW great update diary with a wonderful photo! Thanks Afew

by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 12:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it's not a very fluffy convention because there are hard sanctions. But I don't like to use "tradition", so I said "convention". Will happily use another term if you or someone can suggest one.

Thanks, Alexandra. The photo is courtesy of the Nouvel Obs.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 01:40:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I vote for "not very fluffy convention" :-) but I think the point came across much better in the back and forth anyway.
by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Wed May 10th, 2006 at 03:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series