IV. Why the proportional representation system would not be adequate neither

The majority rule electoral system in France is, to a large extent, unfair and problematic. However, it doesn’t mean automatically that PR would be the perfect solution or even better than the present one.

It is interesting to recall why the Fifth Republic appeared in 1958. Of course, the will of de Gaulle to govern France easily is a very important factor here but it is important to see what enabled his reemergence. The impression that the Fourth Republic with its PR system and weak president was unstable was certainly determinant in its collapse. As well average citizens as many politicians thought that the institutions of the Fourth Republic led to dangerous instability and multi-partism. But if we analyze this more precisely, we can reach the conclusion that it is not obvious that instability had consequences on policy outcomes. The Fourth Republic was the period of the expansion of welfare state, of the first steps of European integration and of wide-ranging legislation on post-war reconstruction.[23] All of this was possible even if there was instability. Furthermore, there was no direct correlation between PR and instability in France. Governments were also very often replaced in the 1930s, as there was a majority rule electoral system. This shows that PR was not the only factor of instability, that political context also matters. “Nor did cabinet instability result in any perceptible decline in support for democracy as the preferred regime; there seems little reason to conceive of the events of 1958 as a case of reequilibration during a democratic breakdown”.[24] So, the myth of the “bad” Fourth Republic and of the “good” Third and Fifth Republics has to be relativised. We should not eliminate automatically but examine attentively PR.

Several propositions of a PR system have been made. The most famous is this formulated by Jacques Julliard. He agrees with the idea that majority rule representation is consubstantial to the Fifth Republic institutions.[25] Therefore, he proposes a brand new set of Institutions. He believes that it would be possible to have PR combined with a presidential regime similar to this existing in the United States. He argues that it would enable to avoid the problems linked with instability. The president would govern and would have to negotiate the means necessary to lead his policy with the Assembly.[26]

Olivier Duhamel thinks that the Senate could be elected through the PR model and the National Assembly through the present system. He stresses that it would enable the “out-of-system” forces (like the extreme right FN) to have a representation in a national institution. He claims that it is better to have non conventional political parties playing a catalyst role in the parliament than dissatisfaction which can degenerate into riots.

However, you should be very careful with such systems. Julliard has not explained in his model what would happen if the parliament would not agree to finance the policy of the president. It is not explained who would be superior: the president or the parliament. Besides, a presidential regime is not in the French political culture: the parliamentary one has emerged as opposed to the royalist absolutism. Therefore, Frenchmen don’t want any “strong man” at the head of the state because of the fear of return to absolutism. The application of the Duhamel’s model could lead to paralysis: you could imagine easily a right-wing National Assembly and a left-wing Senate in such a system. Who would govern then? If the answer is that the National Assembly would have “the last word to say” as it is the case now, de facto representatives elected through PR would not have a huge influence on policy-making.

And replacing the present majority rule electoral system by a PR keeping all the other institutions unchanged would provoke problems. You can quote the example of Poland there which is in such a situation. Poland has very similar Institutions to France (with some variations: a weaker president, a shorter term for the deputies…) but a PR system in National Assembly elections.[27] As a result it is characterized by great instability. Each government since the emergence of democracy in this country was supported by a coalition built by at least two parties, sometimes by a multitude of them. PR was at the origin of the emergence of the hybrid coalition composed by a conservative party, a nationalist ultra catholic party and a left populist party governing the country between 2005 and 2007. This period was this of incoherent policies (some ministries were doing the opposite of others), great corruption and enormous suspiciousness among members of the cabinet. Anti-corruption public forces were used in political aims and the “general interest” was certainly not a guide for the government.[28]

As the French political chessboard is almost as fragmented as in Poland (you can see it during presidential elections, it was especially true in 2002 when the best candidate gat only 19% of the votes), you can imagine that a similar situation would occur with a PR electoral rule in France.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 1006