> I think de Gaulle's legacy explains why France hasn't completely collapsed yet
The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
> country with the highest % of nuclear in its energy mix
Civilian nuclear happened after his departure, though. If anything, De Gaulle's fierce protectionism had pushed the french civilian nuclear industry to pursue homegrown graphite-gaz tech, which was a dead-end technologically, as the Brits eventually found out. De Gaulle's departure opened the way to importing Westinghouse-designed reactors which were a success.
> The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
Alternatively, looking back at the disasters of the 3rd and 4th republics, a strong Presidential system is the only option for a coherent stable long term government to exist in France. The 5th tries to do everything to ensure there's a strong figure and a majority they can work with; the first time there has been no majority, and it's total chaos, reminiscent of how the 3rd and 4th (didn't) worked. And their existence over multiple decades shows that if deputies were forced to compromise more often, it still wouldn't help.
> Alternatively, looking back at the disasters of the 3rd and 4th republics
The 3rd republic was interrupted when the nazis invaded, and was replaced by an undemocratic collaboration government. I don't see what the 5th constitution would have changed in that situation. I would say that the 3rd was, by very far, the republican system that endured the worst situations in France, and it survived most situations.
The 4th republic was interrupted by a military putsch, and replaced by the 5th, who barely survived a second putsch a couple years later. Likewise, no constitutional point of the 5th would have prevented this to happen.
Like it or not, the 5th republic never had to survive any situation comparable to what the 4th and (especially) the 3rd republic survived. Personally, I'm happy that we don't have world wars and civil wars anymore, but that's unrelated to our constitution.
I meant more generally. The 3rd and 4th were very unstable and struggled to function under regular conditions. There were many governments that didn't survive more than a few months, and the average was around a year. As a result long term planning and serious policy making were really really hard to achieve (e.g. the disaster of appeasement).
I think the issue with this common misconception stems from governments falling being seen as a sign of unstability nowadays. Actually, it is just a sign of a fail-fast political culture. Sure, some governments failed in a week, but that was part of the discovery process. The Barnier government, which was doomed from the start and did nothing, took 3 month to be named, and another 3 months to fail. If Barnier had failed in a week, we would have been much better off.
If you want to assess the resilience of the third republic, you have to look at the challenges it overcame. The fifth is far behind in that aspect.
> The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
The current political issues are caused by a lack of majority in parliament. So arguably this is really the one scenario the "Presidential system" cannot be blamed for.
Lack of majority in parliament is nothing new. The 5th made it harder to happen, but when it does, the constitution gives no way to handle the situation. Hard to get MPs to compromise on something when they know that, soon enough, they'll compete the mother of all election where one side wins all.
It's the same in parliamentary systems. There is no majority so it's very hard to form a government and that government is very unstable. This has little to do with the 5th Republic, which is actually designed to avoid unstability as much as possible, but it cannot do miracles...
I don't know why discussions on constitutional issues in France always get stuck on the same flawed or outright false claims, but it's annoying.
> It's the same in parliamentary systems.
Coalitions happen all the time in parliamentary systems. Even in countries with a strong presidential executive, having legislative elections on a separate schedule that help incumbents getting re-elected independently from the head of state helps a lot in getting bipartisan deals. Even in France, the Senate, notwithstanding its issues, is frequently a welcome source of balance of powers for this very reason.
> There is no majority so it's very hard to form a government and that government is very unstable.
Many countries have parliamentary systems and manage to be stable and working democracies. Many more have mixed systems which are much less forceful than France and also work fine.
> Many countries have parliamentary systems and manage to be stable and working democracies. Many more have mixed systems which are much less forceful than France and also work fine.
And over the 70 years of the 3rd Republic and 12 of the 4th, stable and working are not labels that could be applied. The average length of a government in that period is around a year, with many being in power even less than that.
Not sure what's annoying or a "false claim" here...
Coalitions may or may not happen in parliamentary systems or now in France.
> having legislative elections on a separate schedule that help incumbents getting re-elected independently from the head of state helps a lot in getting bipartisan deals
That's how it is in France unless the terms somehow align, which is more common now that Presidential and Parliamentary terms are both 5 years but not guaranteed.
In any case this has nothing to do with coalitions, which are a result of a lack of majority, not of the constitutional system per se.
> Many countries have parliamentary systems and manage to be stable and working democracies
Yes but that's beside the point.
The issue in France is that the strong Presidential system is seen as "right wing" not least because it was created by a General so the left likes to criticise. The reality is that it has worked well and that more parliamentarism would not be a silver buller to solve issues, real or perceived.
> That's how it is in France unless the terms somehow align
The terms always "somehow" align, because the president can reset the term of MPs, which is extremely beneficial just after winning the presidential election.
Because of that and because the president's mandate now has the same duration has the legislature, the two terms are synchronized, we rarely have snap elections (this year was the first time ever since the 5-year presidential mandate was introduced).
The senate works differently, but since it can't block laws, it's less relevant.
> but not guaranteed.
Situation: you get elected but the Assemblée Nationale is against you. Why would you ever not call snap elections? That's what Mitterand did in 1981 and 1988, and it worked both times. We are extremely likely to have new MP elections in 2027, just after a new president gets elected.
> In any case this has nothing to do with coalitions
Of course it does. Because the president has so much weight on the executive, and because appearing as principled and uncompromising is important to prepare for the next election, coalitions are too risky for opposition politicians to enter them: they risk too much and they gain too little by entering a coalition.
> Yes but that's beside the point.
Why? Explaining the lack of coalitions using the concrete constitutional mechanisms that make it impractical makes much more sense than trying to explain it by some immaterial virtue of french political ethos.
> The issue in France is that the strong Presidential system is seen as "right wing" not least because it was created by a General so the left likes to criticise.
Not sure what you are arguing for or against at this point...
If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary.
Again, coalitions stem from lack of majority and potentially large number of parties, not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se. You enter a coalition only when you have to. If you have the majority you don't.
Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions are those where there are many parties and potentially proportional representation so that majorities in Parliament are rare.
Hence the UK which is completely parliamentary but very rarely has coalitions because the system is designed to create majorities, whereas Germany rarely has outright majorities so often has coalitions.
> If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary.
For a cohabitation to happen, you still need a majority. The legislatures in '86, '93 and '97 all had clear majorities. The current situation doesn't have it. Also cohabitation is likely a thing of the past since the constitutional reform of 2000.
> not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se.
The system and the chronology of elections it creates has an impact on political strategies and the willingness to compromise.
> Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions
Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions have it because making coalitions isn't punished by the electoral system. France had a "culture" of coalition before the rules were changed. In fact, that "culture" is not some hard-to-pin virtue, it's political agents understanding the rules of the game, and optimizing their chances to win.
> You enter a coalition only when you have to.
Here is the thing: you never "have to" enter a coalition, and if you do so, you get milked by the senior party, because having the president on their side gives them an overwhelming edge. And so, at the next elections, you get destroyed because you've pushed little of your program and enabled the other side. It's much more rewarding to stay in the opposition.
And do you think that laws are the solution to that? Just take a look at Germany right now; their system is much less chancellor-ized, and it is still a clusterfuck right now.
Like tech is not the solution to social problems, laws are not the solution to political issues.
The 5th republic presidential system, which we owe to De Gaulle, is a large part of the issues we have, though.
> country with the highest % of nuclear in its energy mix
Civilian nuclear happened after his departure, though. If anything, De Gaulle's fierce protectionism had pushed the french civilian nuclear industry to pursue homegrown graphite-gaz tech, which was a dead-end technologically, as the Brits eventually found out. De Gaulle's departure opened the way to importing Westinghouse-designed reactors which were a success.