France’s Diverging Positions, Poor Justifications and Mass Protests: Incapable Politicians, or Poor Circumstance?

France is currently in a poor political situation. Protests have broken out in major cities around the country regarding the labour law reform. The government plans to use Article 49.3 of the Constitution to pass the bill, despite the resistance of many parliamentarians. The reformed labour law gives companies the right ask their employees directly whether or not they would like to modify certain aspects of their work lives. For example, a referendum could be held to determine the number of hours worked per week. If no syndicate with a majority exists within the company, syndicates with at least 30% of the vote would be asked to negotiate instead. The new bill would also simplify the dialogue between syndicates and management teams, and reassure companies by providing an easier means to dismiss workers.

Article 49.3 gives the Ministerial Council, currently led by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, the right to pass a bill without it being voted on by the National Assembly. Michel Debré, who wrote, the constitution of the Fifth Republic with Charles de Gaulle, explained the necessity of this article by recalling the slowness of the decision-making process of the Fourth Republic. He explained that this article should be used under exceptional circumstances to pass bills essential to the wellbeing of the state. However, since the beginning of the Fifth Republic in 1958, this article has been used eighty-four times, more than once a year on average, which far exceeds exceptional usage. It was regularly used between 1976 and the beginning of the Premiership of Raymond Barre, and 1997 and the end of Alain Juppé’s Premiership. Since the beginning of the 21^st century, its use had almost disappeared. Jean-Marc Ayrault and François Fillon, Valls’s predecessors, did not make use of it at all. The current Prime Minister has used it four times already –which admittedly is nothing close to Michel Rocard, Prime Minister from 1988 to 1991, who used it 28 times. Article 49.3 is deeply divisive, seen as both a threat to democracy by some and as a necessity by others. Its current use by the Socialist government reflects the hypocrisy and weakness of the ruling party, and symbolizes the low-level politics currently taking place in France.

In 2006, the Conservative (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin used Article 49.3 to adopt the “Equality of Opportunity Act,” and particularly to adopt the First Employment Contract, which was eventually taken out of the law following massive protests. The First Employment Contract was a new type of contract enabling managers to fire employees without justification during an extended trial period of 2 years instead of 8 months. François Hollande, who was then the chairman of the Socialist Party, dubbed the use of Article 49.3 a “brutality” and a “democratic denial,” a stark contrast to his current political situation.

In 2008, Valls was part of a group of eleven Socialists who proposed an amendment to remove the article from the constitution, which makes his current use of the article somewhat of a paradox. One might claim that Hollande and Valls are actually being pragmatic by changing their views. This happens all the time in politics, and it is not the first time a government has contradicted past positions. However, instead of arguing clearly in defense of Article 49.3 now that it is in his interest to do so, Valls has simply stated that it is essential to the wellbeing of the state without proper justification. As a result, the approval ratings of both Hollande and Valls have dropped, reaching record lows of 11% and 14% of approval among the population.

The article’s lack of clarity in justification isn’t the only problem. The use of Article 49.3 to pass a law demonstrates the fundamental weakness of the government in the Assembly.

The article’s justification lack of clarity isn’t the only problem. The use of article 49.3 to pass a law demonstrates the fundamental weakness of the government in the National Assembly. The “frondeurs” movement, which opposes the government’s policies and wishes for a “true” socialist approach to be taken, is growing in the Assembly. Some 30 parliamentarians from Vall’s own party claimed that they would vote against the proposed labour law if it were put to a vote. Using the words of Hollande in 2006, the “frondeurs” have called Article 49.3 a “democratic denial.” The government is in a poor state, losing its majority, and appears to be passing the labor law simply to gain support in the 2017s upcoming elections – which seems to be backfiring.

On the May 12th, Eliane Assassi, a communist deputy from Seine St Denis, exclaimed in the National Assembly that the time when Hollande claimed that article 49.3 was a brutality was long gone. Manuel Valls ironically responded that Michel Rocard, a member of the socialist party, had used it extensively when in office, that the article had been used extensively since the beginning of the Fifth Republic, and that he had no lesson to receive from someone who was going to vote for a censure motion written by the Conservatives. Using Michel Rocard as an example was a mistake. At the time, the Socialist majority in the National Assembly was very thin (by adding up the number of non-left-wing deputies you get the same number as the number of socialists), and using Article 49.3 was a necessity not to get stuck in endless debates. The “frondeurs” movement is growing. On May 11th, they fell short by just two out of sixty deputies from being able to censure the government. Moreover, using Article 49.3 so much is not an example to follow, as it shows disregard of the most basic democratic institution; the National Assembly. By claiming that he had no lesson to receive from Assassi, Valls is being rather shortsighted. If even communists are willing to vote for a censure motion with the right, it shows their desperation and distrust of the government and Valls’ policies. It doesn’t mean that they are not from the left and have forgotten their values.

The National Assembly is currently the stage to this kind of juvenile debate between weak statesmen that claim to be the best representatives of the left. The conservatives simply oppose the government on principle, like an enemy holding a grudge. The 2017 elections aren’t far away but promise to be intellectually poor. Hopefully, they will bring about change, which seems unlikely given the potential and declared candidates from both sides of the political spectrum. The term “exceptional” seems to have been forgotten from Debré’s statement. Embroiled in conflict both between and within their parties, French politicians seem to have forgotten that their duty is to serve the people, which is why Article 49.3 has become an acknowledgement by the government of its own weakness.