Sorry. I'm not used to the President/Prime Minister thing. In Italy & the UK, the people elect their Prime Minister, but in France they do not? Is it more of a cabinet position? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
The fact that politics is becoming "Presidentialistic" in Western Europe's parliamentary systems, and it appears as though people are electing their prime ministers is a different matte.r guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Ok, pretend for one second that you are explaining this to an alien who's just arrived on earth...
I thought the people of Italy just elected Prodi to be the Prime Minister. Is he beholden to the people or the President, who it appears has been chosen after the fact? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
In France, like in the US, the head of state is an elected president who does have a lot of political power. That, among others, of appointing the executive.
Keep in mind my claim that Western Europe's Parliamentary systems are becoming pseudo-Presidentialistic [France is a separate case altogether].
So, in Italy it just so happens that the President's term expired close to the date of the parliamentary elections. It need not be that way. [France and the EU find themselves in the same situation, for some extrange reason: maybe this is another sign of presidentialization of the parliametary systems].
In Western European Republics [except France] the President is largely a figurehead just like the Monarchs in our Parliamentary monarchies. However, the president/monarch has some important ceremonial powers...
This is why when people elect their parliaments, they vote for their local party or candidate with the national party leader in mind as prime minister. Tony Blair was on the ballot only in one constituency, as was Prodi, as was Villepin. not nationwide.
Imagine for a minute that the US electors were actually (as opposed to just numerically) your congresspeople. Then people would have to vote for their local member of congress with a view to who they want in the white house [except on midterm elections].
It is possible for a government to fall without triggering an election. The PM would go to the king/President and resign. Then the King/Prez would decide whether to call an election or ask someone else to form an alternative ruling coalition. This happened in italy all the time: 4-year parliaments with 3 or 4 different prime ministers. Similarly, Villepin could resign without triggering an election. The UMP still has a huge majority in the national Assembly.
Is that confusing enough? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Am I detecting a note of objection to "Presidentialistic" government from you? To me it seems to provide, at least in the US case (the French Pres seems to have more power -by law, not in the way Bush does, which is not legal- than the US President) a nice set of checks and balances and avoid a "tyranny of the majority." Try not to read these words in the context of current events. I propose it is not the structure of our government but the nature of our economy, education system, campaign finance insanity, etc. that has led to our current problems.
Also, I have a big problem likening a Monarch to a President, not because of their function, but because of how they've obtained their position. (Though in this regard, Bush is more like Monarch, as he was not truly democratically elected...) Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
The French, American and Russian systems are Presidentialistic by design, and there's nothing wrong with that.
As for likening a monarch to a president...
Our Republican constitutions [except the French] are patterned after the Parliamentary Monarchies they replaced. The figurehead presidents have very similar powers [actual and ceremonial] as the old Kings used to have under the late 19th century/early 20th century parliamentary monarchy constitutions, which are still very similar to modern parliamentary monarchy constitutions.
Honestly, the US President and his cabinet look just like an 18th century enlightened despot king and his cabinet, and it is not coincidental that Alexander Hamilton thought the President should be elected for life. That was the first attempt by a bunch of people educated in a parliamentary monarchy to come up with a republican constitution.
Republican constitutions mimic the monarchic constitutions they replace. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
A President my be the public face of a nation and go through the same cermonial protocol as Kings, but that's nothing to do with the way they govern or are held to account. If this is what defines the nature of the executive, there would be no difference between Dictators, Military juntas, Kings, Presidents, PMs, Governors, etc. Which is not the case.
As to the way in which we've co-opted aspects of monarchy, it is a matter of evolution. Christians co-opted pagan holidays, but I think it is fair to say that pagans and Christians have very different world views. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Oh, come on. I'm not aware of any Monarch being elected or impeached by Parliament (without radically changing the nature of the country's political system.)
And speaking more of the modern age, the king of Sweden is often seen as perpetually running against a republic. If the royal family became unpopular and the peoples support waned, there would be a republic. With a figurehead president. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
There have also been republics with institutions not very different from monarchies. The English in their republican phase tried having a non-hereditary chief executive. Under the Instrument of Government (1653) the Council of State elected a Lord Protector for life. Later on in the Commonwealth the Lord Protector was given power to nominate an heir, which Oliver Cromwell did by selecting his eldest surviving son. The term of office of Lord Protector Richard Cromwell was short and unhappy.
Oliver Cromwell did not have the pretensions of the Stuart Kings to be an absolute monarch, but his practical powers were much the same. He also had the benefit of a more efficient state and a disciplined regular army to ensure that his power could be exercised more effectively.
The point I am trying to make is that when a country forms a new government it tends to be similar to the old one. The differences are either cosmetic or reactions to some aspects of the old system (absolute King and Lord Protector in seventeenth century England; constitutional monarch and President subject to checks and balances in eighteenth century America).
The evolution of Parliamentary government in nineteenth and twentieth century Europe, gradually made the head of government more important than the Chief of State.
There is a modern tendency, which France gave institutional form to by giving additional power to the Chief of State, to emphasise one person (usually the Head of government) more than the government as a whole or the Parliament.
The problem with the modern British executive is not the Monarch but the Prime Minister; whose power has grown, is growing and ought to be diminished.
Ceremonial Presidents, in contrast, can't be impeached (nor have the opportunity to give reason for), and are expected to be impartial once ascending to the job (just like constitutional Monarchs). The veto power (if they have it) is their sole 'real' power, though usually conditional: e.g. a Presidential veto effectively means that the law is sent to constitutional court or back to Parliament for a second vote.
Another thing the others haven't mentioned that ceremonial Presidents are usually (but not everywhere) chosen by Parliaments (joint sessions of two houses if there is a two-house Parliament), not popular vote. Proponets see the thus limited (and Monarch-like) legitimacy as something positive: the President would be less likely to want to usurp the PM's policy authority. View it as checks and balances. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
US system with executive President:
(British, Dutch, Scandinavian, Spanish) parliamentary democracy:
Parliamentary democracy with Parliament-elected ceremonial President (Germany, Italy, Hungary etc.):
Parliamentary democracy with popularly elected weak ceremonial President (Portugal, Slovakia etc.):
Parliamentary democracy with both PM and strong (some executive powers) President (France, Poland, Russia):
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If not then I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of the American model. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Americans will usually say "administration" where Europeans say "government", I now realize. In Europe I think "administration" is synonimous with "state bureaucracy" and not restricted to the Cabinet or the heads of national government agencies.
I must not have made myself clear. I don't have a problem with American, French, or Russian presidentialism. I do have a problem with the presidentialisation [i.e., personalisation of politics on the party leaders and of admninistration on the prime minister] of our parliamentary systems.
I suggest that you google "Blair presidential style" to see what I mean. It is entirely possible that calling this "presidentialisation" is a popular misinterpretation of the American system, but that's another story.
Dodo should really turn this into a diary so we can hash it out there. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
In this connection, I am not entirely happy with DoDo's diagrams because generally there should be "proposes" arrows from the head of state down to the PM and from the President/PM down to the rest of the cabinet, and "approves" arrows up from the parliament to the PM and/or cabinet.
In many bicameral systems there are also members of the upper house who are not popularly elected [as was the case in the US initially]: senators "by royal designation", "nominated by the provincial/state government", "lifetime senators"...]. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Didn't I omit that only in the case of the American system? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Maybe the orange arrows pointing into the middle of the brack arrows?
It just didn't seem clear to me. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
The irritating thing about the Parliamentary system is that Blair, for example, can't be voted out of office by the public at large without voting out the whole Labour party. If Labour stays in power he could theoretically continue as PM forever.
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. In his case, he was hoping to do well as PM so as to launch a successful bid to become president after Chirac's departure. Chirac supported him in this, but it has obviously backfired.
Your questions aren't ignorant American... I didn't cover this background because it would have made for a huge diary, but I expect your queries are those of a lot of people who don't know how the French constitution works. Ask away if you have more.
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.
In France it's closer to the US than to a purely parliamentary democracy like the UK.
I disagree. Recent experiences of cohabitation (president from one side, but parliamentary majority form the other side) have shown that most of the executive power is in fact vested with the PM, chosen by the National Assembly. The President retains some prerogatives (notably over the military and diplomacy, and a lot of less visible nominations in variousadministrations), but day-to-day power clearly is with the PM. And Jospin's 5-year stint in power under Chirac showed that this is a stable situation, if not easy to manage for the PM.
The recent change in the presidential mandate from 7 to 5 years has not yet been tested in a cohabitation situation, but I don't expect it to be different. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The recent change in the presidential mandate from 7 to 5 years has not yet been tested in a cohabitation situation, but I don't expect it to be different.
In future I'd expect the trend to be towards more actual power to the PM, but there's no guarantee of this. Seeing the autocratic tendencies of a Villepin, for example, makes me wonder what kind of PM he would appoint and what autonomy he would give that person if he were PRF. He would have the constitution on his side if he chose to act like a monarch (which many, don't forget, considered Mitterand did in his time...)
I would like to see changes in the constitution linking the PM more directly to the parliamentary majority, as happens by convention during cohabitation periods.
Also, I am confused again. Upthread, afew states that the President chooses the PM, not the parliament:
In France, like in the US, the head of state is an elected president who does have a lot of political power. That, among others, of appointing the executive. ... (and) the French pres chooses a PM who draws up a list of ministers for approval (in fact the pres does most of the choosing).
and you say:
the executive power is in fact vested with the PM, chosen by the National Assembly.
Even during "cohabitation" the President still picks the PM, just from a different party. Who has the final say on policies? The President or the PM? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
But the president chooses the Prime Minister. He doesn't even have to take a PM from the political world. For example, Giscard d'Estaing appointed Raymond Barre PM in 1976 on his status as an economist, not as a political figure. As long as there's a parliamentary majority that will support the government and vote its bills, it's OK.
Maybe worth wiki-ing? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
In France, the President is selected by the Templars.
Then to choose a Prime Minister he paints his face with the blood of a Poulet de Bresse and invokes the god Teutates while testing the urine of Lance Armstrong with a strip of L'EQUIPE previously soaked in Fernet-Branca.
If it turns blue, he then selects the politician with the most "L"s in his name, as long as he he isn't birn in a month with an "R" in it.
If it turns fuschia, he selects Jean-Paul Gauthier. So far, that hasn't happened.
Though perhaps JPG qualifies for the "safe pair of hands" award...?
The difference is -- and this is characteristic of the post-1971 "Presidentialized" Fifth REpublic -- that President also has his own "cabinet" with its own "directeur" and comm. operation and policy appartus.
And of course, the PM is still an office constitutionally defined as the "head of the government" meaning the PM should be setting policy and not just implementing. In effect, this happens only during a "co-habitation" or in moments of disfunction within the governing party or coalition (which have been frequent, especially since 2002).
This leads me to the other half of the question, not raised in the post. It was widely reported over the weekend that Hollande would introduce a motion of censure against the government as a way to force Sarko and the UMP deputies to tie themselves to Villepin. But now I wonder if they will instead let him hang -- simply vote for Hollande's motion, which would effectively dissolve the government (though not the Chambre).
From Chirac's pointof view, this weould be ideal -- it would free his hand to replace Villepin while allowing (as bizarre as this sounds) allowing Villepin to save face in so far as he would not be fired and could claim to be what everyone in French politics wants to be these days -- the victim of a "complot."
In the case of a cohabitation, the PM is I think most analogous to the Speaker in an American "cohabitation" (eg, O'Neil/ Reagan; Gingrich/ Clinton).
