4 ms·
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 m
by 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 agoI 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.