Did the political sequence we just witnessed, which ended with Article 49.3 of the Constitution being used to adopt pension reform without a vote, permanently damage democracy?
Agathe Cage The release of Article 49.3, relating to a law so essential to the life of the French people, comes against the backdrop of the long-damaged democratic trust in our country. This can be seen in the high abstention rate, regardless of the ballot, and in the number of blank and invalid ballots found in the ballot boxes – there were 3 million in the second round of the last presidential election. During the “yellow vest” crisis, the demand for democratic renewal was strongly expressed, particularly with the demand for a citizen’s initiative referendum. Some have even gone so far as to suggest a “mandatory mandate” for elected officials, which would be a profound challenge to our principle of representation. Seriously, this idea has been rejected since the French Revolution. But his return indicates the aspiration for profound changes. This ambition is not taken into account, and we find ourselves in the status quo.
Not because the Constitution provides for a lever that makes its use legitimate whatever the context. The annuity debate was flawed from the start, with the choice to use a legal means to amend the Security Funding Act.
This article is for subscribers only. To read more, take advantage of our non-binding offers!
Exclusively from Google:
6.99 € / month
By choosing this promotional subscription path, you accept the deposit of an analysis cookie by Google.