France General Discussion IV: Yellow Fever

[Lechasseur]

I know a lot of left-wingers want to see a Sixth Republic, but what would be different between that and the current Fifth Republic? I never really understood it.

EVERYTHING

The current system is basically the worst of both worlds, with the shallow personality-centric politics of a presidential regime combined with the servile, rubber-stamp parliament that you normally see in Westminster-type systems (although not in Westminster right now ). A movement in either direction would be preferable, but the most important thing is to break down all the shackles that the 1958 constitution put on parliamentary autonomy from the government, and put cabinet selection truly in parliament's hands. It would be even better to get rid of direct election of the president altogether, but sadly I doubt it would be possible to get people on board with that.

Yeah that makes sense

[windjammer]

I mean,
Parlementarism was so great, it gave us 2 wonderful and stable republics that were so stable.
So let's move to a parlementarian system like the UK!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, we'll once again get to see Balladur's preserved corpse on display.

The most shocking part of this news story is that Edouard Balladur is still alive.

I must actually take that "corpse on display" thing back. Balladur's been a has-been for almost quarter century and even then he was old. But seeing him at Chirac funeral, damn, that motherf**ker didn't age.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean,
Parlementarism was so great, it gave us 2 wonderful and stable republics that were so stable.
So let's move to a parlementarian system like the UK!

Uh, the Third Republic was the most successful regime in French history, and only fell when parliament decided to abdicate its responsibilities and empower a single Strong Man figure (sounds familiar?).

If you want to blame the Great Depression, WW2 and the Algeria War on parliamentarism, more power to you, I guess, but that's a ridiculous claim.

[Zinneke]

As much as I agree with you, Antonio, I do think the semi-presidential system the Vth Republic ought to incarnate allows French people to give a general direction to their foreign policy through a Presidential figure well versed enough in the matter, while domestic issues are represented in their local elected official. Given its a nuclear power and now the only EU state with an army capable of deploying and occupying territory for a sustained period of time, France very much needs a captain and not a referee, which is what we'd have in a pure parliamentary system. You can't have a minor party dictate military affairs and collapse governments in it like they had in the Netherlands.  

The mistake was the 5 term Presidency which also implied holding legislative elections immediately after Presidential ones. If France separate the legislative from the executive in electoral terms too there would be a counterweight to any excess Presidentialism.

[windjammer]

I mean,
Parlementarism was so great, it gave us 2 wonderful and stable republics that were so stable.
So let's move to a parlementarian system like the UK!

Uh, the Third Republic was the most successful regime in French history, and only fell when parliament decided to abdicate its responsibilities and empower a single Strong Man figure (sounds familiar?).

If you want to blame the Great Depression, WW2 and the Algeria War on parliamentarism, more power to you, I guess, but that's a ridiculous claim.

The most successful regime in French history? Based on what? Philippe Auguste, Louis XI and Louis XIII were far more successful than the IIIrd republic given how much they improved french's standing.

How can you say that parliamentarism is stable when president du conseils almost never lasted more than 2 years?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The most successful regime in French history? Based on what? Philippe Auguste, Louis XI and Louis XIII were far more successful than the IIIrd republic given how much they improved french's standing.

1. A king is not a regime.
2. "France's standing" can mean anything you want, but if you take it to include things like peace, economic prosperity, and democracy, your argument obviously falls apart.

How can you say that parliamentarism is stable when president du conseils almost never lasted more than 2 years?

So what? I'm not convinced that there's any value to the head of the executive staying in power for a long time. Hell, I f**king wish FBM would be gone after 2 years in office. A democracy doesn't need Strong Men who rule it with an iron fist for a decade, it needs dedicate public servants who are willing to do their job when called upon and willing to leave when they're no longer needed.

Besides, it's worth noting that while governments changed often, policy was generally a lot more stable during the Third Republic, because parliamentary majorities more or less always shared a broad consensus, and this consensus only shifted gradually or as a result of specific events. Meanwhile, in our current hyper-Presidentialism, any time a new government comes in, they undo everything the previous did.

[Kingpoleon]

So what? I'm not convinced that there's any value to the head of the executive staying in power for a long time. Hell, I f**king wish FBM would be gone after 2 years in office. A democracy doesn't need Strong Men who rule it with an iron fist for a decade, it needs dedicate public servants who are willing to do their job when called upon and willing to leave when they're no longer needed.

Trashy, classless language aside? You wouldn’t wish your own leader only got two years in the office. A mandate is a mandate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So what? I'm not convinced that there's any value to the head of the executive staying in power for a long time. Hell, I f**king wish FBM would be gone after 2 years in office. A democracy doesn't need Strong Men who rule it with an iron fist for a decade, it needs dedicate public servants who are willing to do their job when called upon and willing to leave when they're no longer needed.

Trashy, classless language aside? You wouldn’t wish your own leader only got two years in the office. A mandate is a mandate.

...do you know how parliamentary systems work??

[Kingpoleon]

...do you know how parliamentary systems work??

I was specifically referring to the implication that leaders lasting two years could remotely be a good thing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

...do you know how parliamentary systems work??

I was specifically referring to the implication that leaders lasting two years could remotely be a good thing.

Because it can and often is.

[Kingpoleon]

Because it can and often is.

Yes, most famously the flawless short terms of the Roman Republic. I don’t know a lot of systems with a two year term that works.

[Intell]

Because it can and often is.

Yes, most famously the flawless short terms of the Roman Republic. I don’t know a lot of systems with a two year term that works.

NOT HOW PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS WORK. There is no define "terms"

[Kingpoleon]

NOT HOW PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS WORK. There is no define "terms"

Again?

I was specifically addressing. Two. Year. Terms.

[Intell]

NOT HOW PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS WORK. There is no define "terms"

Again?

I was specifically addressing. Two. Year. Terms.

There are no two year terms, there would be an election every four years and there may be full four year terms but if FBM doesn't survive till then there maybe be two year term or one year term.

[Antonio the Sixth]

NOT HOW PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS WORK. There is no define "terms"

Again?

I was specifically addressing. Two. Year. Terms.

There are no two year terms, there would be an election every four years and there may be full four year terms but if FBM doesn't survive till then there maybe be two year term or one year term.

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

[Lechasseur]

As much as I agree with you, Antonio, I do think the semi-presidential system the Vth Republic ought to incarnate allows French people to give a general direction to their foreign policy through a Presidential figure well versed enough in the matter, while domestic issues are represented in their local elected official. Given its a nuclear power and now the only EU state with an army capable of deploying and occupying territory for a sustained period of time, France very much needs a captain and not a referee, which is what we'd have in a pure parliamentary system. You can't have a minor party dictate military affairs and collapse governments in it like they had in the Netherlands.  

The mistake was the 5 term Presidency which also implied holding legislative elections immediately after Presidential ones. If France separate the legislative from the executive in electoral terms too there would be a counterweight to any excess Presidentialism.

Yeah I agree with this.

The Fifth Republic was the best Republic France had from 1958 until 2002.

It seems like the system started going awry after the 5 year term which made it too president dominated.

You need a good balance between the executive and parliament, which France had I the 1958-2002 period.

Before 1958 the system was too parliamentary and since 2002 too presidential.

The Fifth Republic 1958-2002 was just right.

[Santander]

The first one is not even cappable, as it would be illegal not to allow spouse and children to join the person if he has a legal residence and is able to provide.

Where could the threshold be set? The UK tightened the screws on people on the dole or working at Poundland sponsoring their mail order brides to live with them.

[Kingpoleon]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

[Kingpoleon]

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

But this underlined my point: at the heart of all this is essentially: we want people we agree with in power longer than those we disagree with. It seems to me you two are just quibbling over whether you prefer your side in power for a long time or the other side in power for a short time. That’s not a discussion of how free and fair we want elections and governments to be: it’s a discussion of ideological strategy.

[windjammer]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

When the govt is fired every two years, this means instability and you need stability and time if you want to achieve great things.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

When the govt is fired every two years, this means instability and you need stability and time if you want to achieve great things.

This is not an argument. It's a succession of half-baked clichés, some of which I've already refuted in earlier posts that you never addressed. If this is the tenor you want to give this conversation, there's no point in continuing it (especially since it's veering off-topic anyway).

[windjammer]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

When the govt is fired every two years, this means instability and you need stability and time if you want to achieve great things.

This is not an argument. It's a succession of half-baked clichés, some of which I've already refuted in earlier posts that you never addressed. If this is the tenor you want to give this conversation, there's no point in continuing it (especially since it's veering off-topic anyway).

You are very obnoxious and should try to get outside of academia.



For a job, if someone gets fired every six months there will be no possibility to make it better more functional because there is no stability. Someone holding this job for a longer time can make that happen.

I fail to understand how this is controversial. There are many tasks that need many longtime commitments, and being a political leader is one of them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So you're saying the boss would somehow be better off not having the power to fire bad employees who refuse to follow instructions or otherwise fail at their task? Try to go tell that to a boss and see if they agree.