Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

An introduction to France's political system

by Jerome a Paris Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 02:36:54 PM EST

It's time I started writing more stuff about domestic French politics and policies. I hope that others will make diaries about other countries - I plan to front page as many as possible so that as many countries as possible are covered. Thanks already to Colman (Ireland), HKOL (Italy), whataboutbob (Switzerland) and citizen (Japan) for their stories - please join them, and please encourage your European friends to join us and to tell us about their countries.

Now to France, with my introduction to its political system: France has a strange hybrid of a Presidential and a Parliamentary system.


this is an updated version of this comment over at Booman Tribune. Those of you that also wrote in that thread about other countries, please do not hesitate to make diaries here of your own comments there, it will certainly be worthwhile.

The President of France is elected directly by the population every 5 years (it used to be 7 years, but this was shortened - by referendum - in 2002) and has a lot of power - he chooses the prime minister, he can call for early parliamentary elections, and he has sole power to fill in a huge number of important positions in the administration, the judiciary and other. He is the Head of State and also, in normal times the head of the executive.

By normal times, I mean when he has a clear majority in Parliament: he chooses a prime minister from his side, who is formally the head of the government , but is often used as a lighting rod by the President, and he has a majority to vote his laws.

But the parliament can have a different majority, as has happened with increasing frequency in recent years (in 1986-88 and again in 1993-95 under Mitterrand and in 1997-2002 under Chirac). It's what's been called "cohabitation", as the two sides have to share power, but it's not really gridlock. In that case, the Prime Minister is chosen from the other side, and governs with the support of its majority in Parliament. The policies are clearly set by the Prime Minister, but the President keeps specific powers with regards to diplomacy, military affairs, and lots of domestic nominations - which thus require compromise between the two sides.

You basically have one major party on each side, the UMP (now led by Nicolas Sarkozy) is right of center, while the Socialist Party (currently led by François Hollande) is left-of-center. Both would probably fit inside the Democratic Party in the US in terms of policies, as there is a strong Statist streak in all parties in France. The UMP is mostly socially conservative, and more favorable to corporations and the wealthier classes, but does not really contest the French social advantages and is favorable to a strong State. The socialists are socially liberal and more favorable to workers and unions, but they are torn between an economically centrist wing (favorable to privatisation, free trade, and pro-European) and a harder left wing (which still hates the market economy, even if they don't call for a revolution anymore, and are often protectionist).

Alongside the two major parties, you have smaller parties on each side - the pro-European UDF (led by françois Bayrou) and the nationalist UPF (led by de Villiers) on the right, the Greens and the Communist Party on the left. Then you have the extreme right (Le Pen's National Front) and the extreme left (a bewildering array of trotskysts, the biggest groups being Lutte Ouvrière and the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire).

Some elections are base on proportional voting, and some are based on two-round majority vote (the top two candidates in the first round face off in the second round).
The two-round voting system used in parlimanentary elections (held every 5 years) leads to fairly stable coalitions, as the losing candidates of the left in the first round call to vote for the leading one, which most of the time comes form the socialist party (and the same on the right) - so the second round is usually a traditional left-right duel. In some cases, the parties on one side agree not to field candidates against one another in the first round to help the smaller parties go to the second round and get some seats.

Proportional voting, which is used for local elections, allows the smaller parties to get political appointees at the local level, and to measure their relative representativity (this will be used to negotiate a share of "safe" seats in the national elections as described above).

Of course, this stable arrangement has been disrupted by Jean-Marie Le Pen's populist and racist National Front, which polls about 15% of the votes. It is formally on the right, but the mainstream right, to its credit, mostly refuses to ally with the NF candidates, and both the mainstream left and the mainstream right support the other side vs the NF if it ever gets to the second round - so the NF has almost never gotten seats in the Parliament. (There is actually a twist in parliamentary elections: the second round takes place between the top two candidates of the first round AND any candidate that gets more than 12.5% of registered voters - so if you have a strong participation, you can get "triangulaires, or even "quadrangulaires". The National Front has typically been able to force triangulaires in 80 or so electoral districts - out of 577, although they have almost never won one).

In 2002, Le Pen got to the second round of the Presidential election by coming a smidgen in front of the Socialist Party candidate (it was Chirac 20%, Le Pen 17%, Jospin 16%) who lost out votes to a number of smallish candidates on the left (one communist, one green, two trostskysts, and two others) - everybody thought that Jospin was a shoo in for the second round, and nobody bothered to vote for him in the first round...

Anyway, the system is fairly robust: allows for good representation of smaller parties at the local level but creates stable majorities to govern at the national level. There is an unresolved tension between the Presidential election and the parliamentary elections, as both provide political legitimacy and power.

Display:
There is an unresolved tension between the Presidential election and the parliamentary elections, as both provide political legitimacy and power.

Do you see that as a bad thing?

My sense is that a certain... safe, delimited sort of political tension may be a positive thing.

How often must parliamentary elections be held?  And what sort of local politics are there--and what importance is there to any; how do they play into the national scene?

Is there anything from the departements that even vaguely approximates the importance of American state, or Canadian provincial politics and elections?  Is there any distinctly regional character to French politics (are there regions that are distinctly 'red' or 'blue'?)

How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds Makes ill deeds done. Shakespeare; King John

by ogre (p-mclaughlin@REMOVETHIScox.net) on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 02:46:58 PM EST
So, a few short answers:

The French have shown that they like the cohabitation (with the power sharing), but they have also been frustrated at times by the inability of the state to act. Thus the recent reform that aligns presidential and parliamentary elections: both take place every 5 years, with the Presidential election taking place just before. Historically, the French have always provided a parliamentary majority to a just-elected president, and it happened again in 2002. But theoretically, the parliament could be from the other side, and it would be hard to know what would happen then - this has not been tested yet with the recent change of the presidential mandate in 2002 only.

France being still pretty centralised, local powers are not so important, and they are additionally split between departements (95 in metropolitan France) and regions (22 of them, usually 2 to 6 départements), with various powers allocated from the center, like school constructions and management (but with centralised programs), road management, and management of some social subsidies. Plus the big towns - and their mayors- are also pretty strong. You also have "communautés urbaines", i.e. an administrative grouping of big cities with their suburbs, to manage things like public transportation and pool local taxes to avoid beggar-thy-neighbor  stuff and inequalities). Everybody agrees that one or two layers should be eliminated, but of course nonody wants to be the one to disappear...

Some regions are more typically to the left or the right, but you don't have the sharp differences as in the US. The most relevant difference is probably between Paris and the provinces or, increasingly, between the big cities and the rest.

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 03:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's one thing Americans have in common with the French. Traditionally Americans have also liked to have different parties controlling the executive branch and at least one of the houses of Congress.

The French "separation of powers" (if you can call it that) is still confusing to me. Would you say, for example, that Chirac has more power over France than Bush has over the U.S? Less? About the same?

Maybe a more concrete example would be helpful. Could Chirac have invaded Iraq without an act of Parliament? Could he declare French citizens "enemy combatants" and send them off to, say, St. Miquelon, to be abused, raped tortured and held indefinitely, the good old American way?

by Matt in NYC on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 12:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Matt, I can give you my take as a Brit who has lived for years in France.

I think the French president has too much power. The constitution of the Fifth Republic, drawn up in 1958 in emergency conditions close to those of a coup d'état, was designed to put an end to parliamentary instability and put a strong hand at the helm, so to speak -- the strong hand being specifically Général de Gaulle's.

Since then, I think there has been some evolution toward rather more parliamentary activity, but the president still holds sweeping and all-permeating powers, to the extent that the office is often compared to that of a modern-day monarch. It's hard to compare with Bush, because he has Congress in lockstep, and is actively pursuing the increase of executive power. In other words, political conditions at a given time influence how much power a president has -- Chirac's on a down (referendum), Bush on an up (GOP hubris).

Foreign policy decisions in France are part of the king's -- oops, the president's -- field of power. As for declaring citizens "enemy combatants", no, I don't think that's possible -- but it isn't really a good "old" American way either, since it came in with the Patriot Act.

Conclusion -- I'd quite like to see a certain degree of constitutional reform in France. I'd just love to see a change of government in America...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 04:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess we've learned from experience what happens when one party (most recent case: Republican) gets control of the whole government.

Gridlock seems awfully nice when the alternative is this.

Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

by polecat on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 08:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe we can get a list going of European political systems. I took a shot at the Dutch one here.
by Frank (wijsneus-aht-gmail-doht-com) on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 06:29:38 PM EST
Thank you. I enjoyed this post. It would be great to have a compendium of sketches like this for all European countries.
by Coral on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 08:08:20 PM EST
That sounds like a very good arrangement of powers.

What about the Judiciary?  Who decides what the laws mean?

things fall into place, dig holes and wait

by Cicero on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 08:50:04 PM EST
Thanks for the summary. I have two questions.

1.) What is the effect of this system regarding minorities? France has a minority of about 15% North Africans, mostly from Algeria, if I understand correctly. Are they proportionally represented in Parliament? Tje American system is poor in this regard, due to lack of proportional representation.

2.) How do you deal with the difference between the urban viewpoint and the rural viewpoint? In the US we have two houses of government specifically to address that issue, as you know, a Senate representing each district or state equally, and a House representing districs or states based on population. This compromise has worked pretty well; do you have a scheme that approximates it?

(It is interesting to watch the convoluted development history of the EU voting scheme as it attempts to deal with exactly the same problem. I often wonder why the EU doesn't simply set up two houses of government...)

by asdf on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 08:57:40 PM EST
(It is interesting to watch the convoluted development history of the EU voting scheme as it attempts to deal with exactly the same problem. I often wonder why the EU doesn't simply set up two houses of government...)

I had the exact same wondering...seems like if the EU had something like the American House of Representatives, the sense of being left out of the loop by the people towards the political elite, might be taqken care of...they would have a voice.

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 03:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1) There's no proportional representation at a national level in France, and French people of immigrant origin (mostly Arabo-Muslims) are severely under-represented.

2)The French Senate is rather similar to the American. (Senators represent départements). So much so that it is jokingly called the "Chamber of Agriculture."

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 04:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1) Minorities are not so numerous as you say - and the first country of immigration is, believe it or not, Portugal. About half of the "Arabs" in France have the French nationality, and the other half are immigrants, but there are no exact numbers because it is illegal in France to ask people for their race or religion.

Minorities are not well represented in Parliament. There have been recent efforts to bring in minorities in government, and there is a growing awareness of the issue, but it is changing slowly (but then women are also woefully under-represented, despite specific laws to improve that).

But they will integrate, just like the Poles and Italians and Portugues did in previous generations (there was the EXACT same discourse about the Poles at the beginning of the 20th century than you have now about Muslims - they are too religious, they are too different, they don't want to integrate, etc...)

2) The rural viewpoint is OVER represented in France, with the Senate as stated above, and through the nostaligia of the age not so long ago (a generation or so) when more people lived in the countryside than in the cities. So everybody still has grandparents or great uncles in the country side and feel that that's their real "home" -thus also the French's irrational attahcment to the CAP, of which they have a romanticized view)

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 05:57:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Jerome...this is informative...and the questions being asked help to uderstand it better too.

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 03:05:09 AM EST
re: minorities - As Jerome mentioned in the comments it is illegal to collect stats on race or ethnicity so all such figures are rather unreliable. That said, I believe the estimates for the number of non whites in France (Arabs, blacks, asians) are on the order of 10-12%. IIRC there is only one or zero in the National Assembly.  There is currently a debate about whether to institute affirmative action, which the French call 'positive discrimination.'  Most people are against it and the arguments cross party lines. Perhaps the most important advocate of affirmative action is Nicolas Sarkozy, Minister of Interior, head of the ruling party, enemy of Chirac, and probably next presidential candidate of the right in 2007.

re: Senate - Should be mentioned that the senate is much weaker than the National Assembly. Also it is not elected through normal elections. Only elected officials get to vote - meaning lots of small town mayors.

re: centralization - While it isn't the completely top-down system that it was until the early eighties, as Jerome mentions it is still very centralized. One aspect of that is that there is a national police force controlled by the ministry of interior and the prefects. Prefects are a little like governors of the departments except that they are appointed by the minister of interior rather than being elected.

by MarekNYC on Thu Jun 16th, 2005 at 10:41:07 AM EST
Thanks!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 17th, 2005 at 02:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]