Clément Viktorovitch returns every week to the debates and political issues. Sunday, October 1: the possibility of a revision of our Constitution, at the heart of many questions that animate the news, starting with that of a hypothetical referendum on immigration.
It all started with a short sentence, noted by journalist Philippe Bernard for the newspaper The world, while she had gone unnoticed. A sentence slipped by Emmanuel Macron in the letter he sent to party leaders following the meeting in Saint-Denis in August: “The subject of immigration will be dealt with, on the one hand, in Parliament, (…) on the other hand, through the question of the referendum and possible changes to the Constitution.” This is how, through this document, the President of the Republic seems to open the way to a historic demand of the National Rally, as well as, now, of the Republicans: the organization of a referendum on immigration.
We can be skeptical about this possibility. In the opinion of jurists – for example Dominique Rousseau, professor at Paris 1 University, or Didier Maus, who chaired the French Association of Constitutional Law – the organization of such a referendum would absolutely require going through article 89 of our constitution, which allows, precisely, to modify the Constitution.
It seems complicated. Because, before being able to submit a constitutional revision to the vote of the French, the text must already have been adopted in the same terms by the two assemblies. Unlike ordinary laws, we cannot do without the vote of the Senate. However, the fact is that there is, today, in the Senate, a very large right-wing majority. And, since the start of his presidency, each time Emmanuel Macron has wanted to modify the Constitution, what has happened? LR senators upped the ante, demanding that the text satisfy all their demands, until the president finally gave up. This is what happened for the reform of institutions and for the inclusion of ecology among the principles of the Republic. And we can imagine that this is what would happen with immigration: the demands are already so great that it seems difficult, for Emmanuel Macron, to grant such a victory to the opposition.
Political calculation
With this little sentence, the head of state enters the political game. We can imagine that Emmanuel Macron pretends to consider a referendum on immigration, while knowing that it will not succeed, so as to be able to blame the failure on the senatorial right. This is a calculation that François Hollande had already made, when he tried, in vain, but voluntarily, to have the Constitution modified to honor one of his promises: the right to vote for foreigners in local elections. With each time, the same consequence: the erosion of citizens’ belief in public action. By dint of agitating for constitutional revisions which everyone knows will not succeed, we are fueling the idea of the impotence of political leaders.
This also poses a democratic problem. Because the voting method for senators actually favors small rural communities. However, they have always voted more to the right than the rest of the population. Our upper house therefore structurally benefits the right-wing parties. In 65 years of the Fifth Republic, the Senate has only experienced three short years of a left-wing majority, between 2011 and 2014. The problematic consequence is that it is extremely difficult for a government which would not be right, to succeed in modifying our Constitution. Nicolas Sarkozy had a free hand to carry out a major review in 2008. François Hollande had to be content with a reform limited to the issues of the fight against terrorism. Emmanuel Macron, for the moment, has lost his teeth.
Simplify the rules for constitutional revisions?
This is not necessarily the right solution: you have to be careful. The very principle of a Constitution is that it cannot be modified every four mornings. It must offer citizens guarantees of stability and respect for fundamental rights. But it is abnormal for one political camp to have, in fact, a monopoly on large-scale constitutional revisions. A fortiori a camp which makes less than 5% in the presidential election, but still has the Senate lock!
If we started by reforming the election of senators, while refraining from using constitutional revision projects as electoral leaflets, our democratic life and our public debate would, without doubt, already improve!