4 ms·

> That's how it is in France unless the terms somehow align The terms always "somehow" align, because the president can reset the term of MPs, which is extreme

by pyrale 2y ago

> That's how it is in France unless the terms somehow align The terms always "somehow" align, because the president can reset the term of MPs, which is extremely beneficial just after winning the presidential election. Because of that and because the president's mandate now has the same duration has the legislature, the two terms are synchronized, we rarely have snap elections (this year was the first time ever since the 5-year presidential mandate was introduced). The senate works differently, but since it can't block laws, it's less relevant. > but not guaranteed. Situation: you get elected but the Assemblée Nationale is against you. Why would you ever not call snap elections? That's what Mitterand did in 1981 and 1988, and it worked both times. We are extremely likely to have new MP elections in 2027, just after a new president gets elected. > In any case this has nothing to do with coalitions Of course it does. Because the president has so much weight on the executive, and because appearing as principled and uncompromising is important to prepare for the next election, coalitions are too risky for opposition politicians to enter them: they risk too much and they gain too little by entering a coalition. > Yes but that's beside the point. Why? Explaining the lack of coalitions using the concrete constitutional mechanisms that make it impractical makes much more sense than trying to explain it by some immaterial virtue of french political ethos. > 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. Ah, yes let's make it a partisan issue now. > The reality is that it has worked well Everything works well when there is no hardship.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
Not sure what you are arguing for or against at this point... If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary. Again, coalitions stem from lack of majority and potentially large number of parties, not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se. You enter a coalition only when you have to. If you have the majority you don't. Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions are those where there are many parties and potentially proportional representation so that majorities in Parliament are rare. Hence the UK which is completely parliamentary but very rarely has coalitions because the system is designed to create majorities, whereas Germany rarely has outright majorities so often has coalitions.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary. For a cohabitation to happen, you still need a majority. The legislatures in '86, '93 and '97 all had clear majorities. The current situation doesn't have it. Also cohabitation is likely a thing of the past since the constitutional reform of 2000. > not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se. The system and the chronology of elections it creates has an impact on political strategies and the willingness to compromise. > Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions have it because making coalitions isn't punished by the electoral system. France had a "culture" of coalition before the rules were changed. In fact, that "culture" is not some hard-to-pin virtue, it's political agents understanding the rules of the game, and optimizing their chances to win. > You enter a coalition only when you have to. Here is the thing: you never "have to" enter a coalition, and if you do so, you get milked by the senior party, because having the president on their side gives them an overwhelming edge. And so, at the next elections, you get destroyed because you've pushed little of your program and enabled the other side. It's much more rewarding to stay in the opposition.

by pyrale 2y ago

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Not sure what you are arguing for or against at this point... If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary. Again, coalitions stem from lack of majority and potentially large number of parties, not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se. You enter a coalition only when you have to. If you have the majority you don't. Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions are those where there are many parties and potentially proportional representation so that majorities in Parliament are rare. Hence the UK which is completely parliamentary but very rarely has coalitions because the system is designed to create majorities, whereas Germany rarely has outright majorities so often has coalitions.

pyrale 2y ago
> If you're the President and Parliament is against you and you don't want to quit you have to step aside as happened in 1986, 1993, and 1997 and the system does become essentially parliamentary. For a cohabitation to happen, you still need a majority. The legislatures in '86, '93 and '97 all had clear majorities. The current situation doesn't have it. Also cohabitation is likely a thing of the past since the constitutional reform of 2000. > not parliamentary vs Presidential systems per se. The system and the chronology of elections it creates has an impact on political strategies and the willingness to compromise. > Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions Countries that have a "culture" of coalitions have it because making coalitions isn't punished by the electoral system. France had a "culture" of coalition before the rules were changed. In fact, that "culture" is not some hard-to-pin virtue, it's political agents understanding the rules of the game, and optimizing their chances to win. > You enter a coalition only when you have to. Here is the thing: you never "have to" enter a coalition, and if you do so, you get milked by the senior party, because having the president on their side gives them an overwhelming edge. And so, at the next elections, you get destroyed because you've pushed little of your program and enabled the other side. It's much more rewarding to stay in the opposition.