Display:
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