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
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...])
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
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:
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
BTW great update diary with a wonderful photo! Thanks Afew
Thanks, Alexandra. The photo is courtesy of the Nouvel Obs.