Arrived fourth last Sunday during the first round of the legislative elections, Les Républicains could well prove to be one of the keys to the ballot, if Emmanuel Macron was forced to build a relative majority. A possibility in the face of which they seem divided. What would they do if Emmanuel Macron failed to muster an absolute majority in the National Assembly? Would they agree to govern with him? Or would they remain in strict opposition?
“The question arises for all of us to see if we are going to imagine what we could call a government agreement to demand that we can implement reforms that he does not want to do, thus explained Thursday, June 16 on RTL Jean-François Copé, mayor of Meaux and former president of the UMP. So, I imagine tomorrow something that could look like what we had known in the past with the RPR and the UDF, that is to say two partisan structures that are capable of carrying out courageous reforms. Jean-François Copé is extremely clear: he is calling for a real alliance of government, as was the case yesterday for the RPR and the UDF or for the plural left, between 1997 and 2002. This would, basically, a very classic solution within the framework of the Fifth Republic.
However, it is not certain that it will succeed: it seems to be very contested internally, starting with Gérard Larcher. The President of the Senate, the second character of the State, was Thursday morning the guest of BFMTV. “I am for an opposition that is independent, clear and useful to the country, he hammered. So there is no question of merger or coalition. This line is, I repeat, independent, clear and useful to the country. We collectively want to be useful to the country.” You hear it: for Gérard Larcher, Les Républicains must remain a clear and independent opposition. And, strategically, that makes sense. The hypothesis defended by Jean-François Copé could have the consequence of seeing the Republicans gradually dissolve within the Presidential majority. Their ultimate objective, to regain power, would risk being compromised.
Concretely, an opposition “useful to the country” does not mean much: the formula remains extremely vague. Fortunately, the president of the LR Party, Christian Jacob, allows us to see more clearly: he was on Europe 1 this morning. “We are in opposition to Emmanuel Macron, but this opposition will be a useful opposition, useful to the country, he assured. This means that we will always be proactive, not in compromises, in alliances, there won’t be any. On the other hand, we will make proposals if our proposals are accepted. We have always assumed to be able to vote on texts when they go in the right direction.
It is already a little clearer: the Republicans will accept neither compromise nor alliance, but they will make proposals and vote on certain texts. And it’s interesting because it takes us back to a very old institutional practice: that of the Third Republic. At the time, the President of the Council (that is to say, the head of government), rarely had a stable majority in the National Assembly. It was therefore forced to seek “diagonals”, that is to say, to negotiate, case by case, text by text, sometimes with such groups, sometimes with others, in an attempt to have their laws adopted. The model was not ideal in terms of speed and efficiency, but it worked. This practice of the institutions, very parliamentary, is precisely that against which General de Gaulle had risen.
It is however true that the Fifth Republic provides a solution in the event of a relative majority, starting with the famous article 49-3, which allows the Government to have a text adopted without having to have it voted on by Parliament. Moreover, it is thanks to him that Michel Rocard was able to govern despite a relative majority: between 1988 and 1991, in three years, he used it 28 times. Except that article 49-3 was reformed in 2008, at the instigation of Nicolas Sarkozy: it can no longer be used (to simplify) except on one text per year in addition to the finance laws. Could Emmanuel Macron govern today with a relative majority? In any case, it would be much more difficult. We must measure the irony of the situation: a constitutional reform desired by a Gaullist president could today lead the Gaullist opposition to impose, on the President of the Republic, the practice of power which had precisely sought to guard against… General deGaulle!