6 ms·

To be fair, most of the politicians of his time were inept too. Look at the story of the fourth republic. Full of private interest lobbyists and party machinist

To be fair, most of the politicians of his time were inept too. Look at the story of the fourth republic. Full of private interest lobbyists and party machinist.

lm28469 2y ago
Oh yes sure, but you had at least some of them who were both successful and caring for the long term state of their country. Today wherever you look, at least in France, you see the same self serving behaviours Ironically they all call themselves "Gaullists", even though none of them are, but since it is the benchmark of what a leader should be they all defaults to that term. I think de Gaulle's legacy explains why France hasn't completely collapsed yet (only country in EU with the atom bomb, country with the highest % of nuclear in its energy mix, a decent army), all of it is slowly crumbling away of course
- pyrale 2y ago
  > 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.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    > 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.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      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.
      - mytailorisrich 2y ago
        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...
        pyrale 2y ago
        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.
        mytailorisrich 2y ago
        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.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > 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.
    - pyrale 2y ago
      > 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.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        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). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gouvernements_de_la_France#IVe_R%C3%A9publique_(27_octobre_1946_%E2%80%94_4_octobre_1958) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gouvernements_de_la_...
        2y ago
jimnotgym 2y ago
Look at the story of how De Gaulle became prominent in the first place. France, with a huge army, fell to the German army in weeks, while politicians argued, resigned, sacked Generals etc. Or look at how they ignored the occupation of the Rhineland, when even the German army felt they would be crushed if France attacked. Etc etc
- mmooss 2y ago
  > France, with a huge army, fell to the German army in weeks, while politicians argued, resigned, sacked Generals etc. Do you mean to blame politicians for the military's failure? The military organized, equipped, trained, planned, and commanded their short-lived WWII efforts. In Germany after WWI, if I recall correctly, they made scapegoats out of those they wanted to demonize rather than take responsibility.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    That's not my read of his comment. De Gaulle was a noisy upstart colonel when the Germans started their invasion of France, and was only promoted to 1-star general when France was half-way to being conquered. And you certainly could blame the politicians for having General Incompetent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Gamelin#Role_in_the_Second_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Gamelin#Role_in_the_Se... ) in charge of the army until part-way through the German Conquest. And then replacing him with General Worthless ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Weygand#Recall_to_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Weygand#Recall_to_servi... ).
  - wat10000 2y ago
    The French Third Republic was a democracy in which the military was subordinate to the civilian government. Responsibility flows uphill to the people in charge. When the consequences involve the defeat and occupation of the country, it makes no sense to blame one organization and absolve the people who were in charge of it.
    - mmooss 2y ago

To be fair, most of the politicians of his time were inept too. Look at the story of the fourth republic. Full of private interest lobbyists and party machinist.

lm28469 2y ago

Oh yes sure, but you had at least some of them who were both successful and caring for the long term state of their country. Today wherever you look, at least in France, you see the same self serving behaviours Ironically they all call themselves "Gaullists", even though none of them are, but since it is the benchmark of what a leader should be they all defaults to that term. I think de Gaulle's legacy explains why France hasn't completely collapsed yet (only country in EU with the atom bomb, country with the highest % of nuclear in its energy mix, a decent army), all of it is slowly crumbling away of course

pyrale 2y ago
> 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.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  > 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.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    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.
    - mytailorisrich 2y ago
      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...
      - pyrale 2y ago
        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.
        mytailorisrich 2y ago
        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.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > 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.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > 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.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      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). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gouvernements_de_la_France#IVe_R%C3%A9publique_(27_octobre_1946_%E2%80%94_4_octobre_1958) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gouvernements_de_la_...
      - 2y ago

jimnotgym 2y ago

Look at the story of how De Gaulle became prominent in the first place. France, with a huge army, fell to the German army in weeks, while politicians argued, resigned, sacked Generals etc. Or look at how they ignored the occupation of the Rhineland, when even the German army felt they would be crushed if France attacked. Etc etc

mmooss 2y ago
> France, with a huge army, fell to the German army in weeks, while politicians argued, resigned, sacked Generals etc. Do you mean to blame politicians for the military's failure? The military organized, equipped, trained, planned, and commanded their short-lived WWII efforts. In Germany after WWI, if I recall correctly, they made scapegoats out of those they wanted to demonize rather than take responsibility.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  That's not my read of his comment. De Gaulle was a noisy upstart colonel when the Germans started their invasion of France, and was only promoted to 1-star general when France was half-way to being conquered. And you certainly could blame the politicians for having General Incompetent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Gamelin#Role_in_the_Second_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Gamelin#Role_in_the_Se... ) in charge of the army until part-way through the German Conquest. And then replacing him with General Worthless ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Weygand#Recall_to_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Weygand#Recall_to_servi... ).
- wat10000 2y ago
  The French Third Republic was a democracy in which the military was subordinate to the civilian government. Responsibility flows uphill to the people in charge. When the consequences involve the defeat and occupation of the country, it makes no sense to blame one organization and absolve the people who were in charge of it.
  - mmooss 2y ago