For this professor of constitutional law, if the government wants to avoid “excesses, violence”, it must “either hold a referendum or dissolve” the National Assembly.
The use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution to pass the pension reform through the Assembly is not “a failure”, defended Friday, March 17, the Minister of Labor Olivier Dussopt while the opposition and the inter-union denounced a “denial of democracy”. “There will be a vote”, assured Elisabeth Borne, recalling that she thus engages the responsibility of the government. For the constitutionalist Dominique Rousseau, the executive is at the heart of a “constitutional crisis” which he can only get out of through a referendum or a dissolution.
franceinfo: The executive therefore wants to suggest that there is no difference between 49.3 with a vote on the merits of the reform in the hemicycle. Is it true, there is no, there is no difference?
Dominique Rousseau: Yes, there is a huge difference since if there is a vote, there will not be a vote on the text but there will be a vote on the motion of censure. It’s all about the use of article 49.3. To use section 49.3 is to shift the debate. The debate is no longer for or against the text, is the debate for or against the government? So yes, there will be a vote, but not on the pension law. There will be a vote on for or against keeping the government in place.
Do we stay with this artifice in the spirit of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic?
No. Article 49.3 was invented by the Prime Ministers of the Fourth Republic who were fed up with being overthrown every six months and who therefore asked for an article to be introduced rationalizing the parliamentary system, as we said at the time.
“This article 49.3 was thought out when there was an absence of a majority. However, there, there was a majority since there was an alliance between Renaissance and the Republicans. Even a majority can be uncertain, but a majority. “
Dominique Rousseauat franceinfo
Article 49.3 has been used for purposes other than those for which it was intended. When you trigger the nuclear weapon, the others respond. And it’s not just the motion of censure. There are still institutions that allow blocking. For those who want to block the law on pensions, you have the referral of the Constitutional Council and there are strong risks of unconstitutionality of this law. Not so much basically.
On the form that was chosen?
On the form: article 47 [qui permet de limiter la durée des débats au Parlement], the violation of a constitutional principle. The Council speaks of the principle of clarity and sincerity of parliamentary debates. There was no clarity and sincerity in the debates. The amendments were rejected, article 38 [pour accélérer les débats] was used in the Senate. Blocked voting has been used in the Senate. In other words, there was not really a clear and sincere debate. But it is a constitutional requirement.
Can we still speak of democratic denial, as we hear in the voices of the opposition and some demonstrators?
Democratic denial? Denial of parliamentary democracy, that’s for sure, since everything has been done to block parliamentary debate by both the majority and the oppositions who have tabled amendments that are sometimes a bit eccentric or preposterous.
We understood in the first reading in the Assembly, that the opposition wanted to play the clock a little to allow the demonstration to gain ground. And the majority, too, was playing the watch never to arrive at this article seven and this vote or it knew itself to be a little fragile.
I think there was a majority, as we clearly saw with the joint committee. There is an alliance between Renaissance and the Republican right which have come to an agreement. There was a majority that was built on this text, a majority may be fragile, but a majority and the use of article 49.3 shows, if you will, the weakness in some way, or the attack on parliamentary debate since we are not voting on the text. Once again, I think we have to be clear: section 49.3 is to drag the debate. We no longer want to discuss the law on pensions.
What Elisabeth Borne says has said it several times: “there will be a vote”.
Let her read section 49.3, there will be a vote. She is right, there will be a vote but not on the text. There will be a vote on: Do you want the government led by Elisabeth Borne to continue or not? And for the deputies, it is very important because you have deputies who may be against the text of the law but who do not want the government to fall. I am thinking, for example, of certain Renaissance deputies or certain MoDem deputies who were against the text but who are perhaps not in favor of bringing down the government.
“The stakes are going to be important insofar as there can be a coagulation of the various oppositions with a total on arrival, a majority.”
Dominique Rousseauat franceinfo
Since only those who are for the motion of censure vote, that is to say those who are against or who abstain, they are in the same camp. Only those who are in favor will move to vote. And it would require a majority of members present in the Assembly, so it is very important with the possible resignation of the government.
Are we at the beginning of a constitutional crisis with this government which therefore has a relative majority and which is having a hard time getting one of the emblematic texts passed?
We’re in because there’s an event that’s been somewhat overlooked given the importance of pensions law, but on Wednesday, a government bill, which aimed to merge two independent authorities on nuclear issues was revoked. In other words, the government can no longer govern. It no longer has a majority, even on texts I would say are not insignificant, but on texts other than, for example, retirement.
And what does the Constitution say? In these cases, it is necessary to dissolve, to return to the polls? Is it in these cases that it is planned?
If we look at history without making a comparison. But for example, in May 68, when there was this break between power and society, that was the break between society and those in power. The government had not been overthrown but there was a rift between society and the government. What did General de Gaulle do at Pompidou’s request? He dissolved.
“I think that if we really want to avoid excesses, violence, etc., we must at some point either hold a referendum or dissolve.”
Dominique Rousseauat franceinfo
The constitution, it is allowed to overcome the war in Algeria, May 68, the departure of General de Gaulle, the cohabitation, the left in power, etc.
Is it strong enough?
Let’s say it has the instruments to face crises. I have to be careful with myself because I am a constitutionalist, so I could tend to insist or overestimate the importance of constitutions, but I think that we are currently in a gap between the ideas of the country and the institutions. As long as the ideas of the country and the institutions are fitting, it works. There, you have ideas of the country, ie the citizens who ask to be associated with the making of the law. And you have institutions that say no, no, law-making is for elected officials. So there is a disconnect between the institutions and the ideas of the country.