7 ms·

> 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 und

by 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_...
- pyrale 2y ago
  I think the issue with this common misconception stems from governments falling being seen as a sign of unstability nowadays. Actually, it is just a sign of a fail-fast political culture. Sure, some governments failed in a week, but that was part of the discovery process. The Barnier government, which was doomed from the start and did nothing, took 3 month to be named, and another 3 months to fail. If Barnier had failed in a week, we would have been much better off. If you want to assess the resilience of the third republic, you have to look at the challenges it overcame. The fifth is far behind in that aspect.

by pyrale 2y ago

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_...

pyrale 2y ago
I think the issue with this common misconception stems from governments falling being seen as a sign of unstability nowadays. Actually, it is just a sign of a fail-fast political culture. Sure, some governments failed in a week, but that was part of the discovery process. The Barnier government, which was doomed from the start and did nothing, took 3 month to be named, and another 3 months to fail. If Barnier had failed in a week, we would have been much better off. If you want to assess the resilience of the third republic, you have to look at the challenges it overcame. The fifth is far behind in that aspect.