How many constitutions has france had

Railroads snaked across the country, the government separated church and state by law, and France acquired ever more colonial territory in North and West Africa, Madagascar and Indochina.

But the republic teetered in the aftermath of the Dreyfus Affair , in which a Jewish officer was wrongly convicted of German espionage. Both world wars were over, the Great Depression was solidly in the past, and France was free from the puppet Vichy government. So what could possibly go wrong in the new era of peace and European unity? A lot, as it turns out.

The average cabinet only lasted six months , and there were 16 prime ministers in the 12 years between and What drove the government to its breaking point was the Algeria crisis.

The French Army in Algeria slowly consolidated power, and by May had complete control over the territory. The government dissolved itself and brought in Charles de Gaulle to rewrite a new constitution, ushering in the Fifth Republic. Lorraine Boissoneault is a contributing writer to SmithsonianMag. She has previously written for The Atlantic, Salon, Nautilus and others.

In the oath, they vowed not to separate until they established a constitution. The First Republic It all began with the price of bread—and dozens of other social, political and economic factors. The Council of States consists of various members: most are appointed based on competitive examinations, some are appointed by the President of the Republic, and others appointed by the government.

Cases of misconduct by ministers are heard in the Court of Justice of the Republic, which consists of six parliamentarians elected from each house and three judges of the Court of Cassation.

The Constitutional Council handles constitutional issues. It consists of nine regular members who are appointed by the President, the President of the Senate, or the President of the National Assembly every three years for a nine-year, non-renewable term. In addition, former Presidents of the Republic are also members of the Constitutional Council, by right currently there are three such members.

The Council must confirm ex ante the constitutionality of all organic laws before promulgation, as well as regular laws challenged by the President, the Prime Minister, a president of one of the houses, 60 Senators, or 60 Deputies.

Constitutional amendments in extended the powers of the Council to review the constitutionality of laws after their promulgation when a case concerning fundamental rights arises in the context of court cases. A constitutional amendment can be proposed by the President on advice of the Prime Minister or by members of parliament. It must be passed by both houses of parliament sitting separately and ratified by referendum.

If the amendment is a government proposal, it may be ratified by a three-fifths majority of a joint session of parliament.

Newsletters Subscribe. Back to country selector. The Executive France has a semi-presidential system. The President is head of state and supreme commander of the military, and chairs the cabinet. The Council of Ministers The President appoints the Prime Minister, who nominates the other ministers for appointment by the President. In practice, the Presidents exerts a great deal of influence over a cabinet of the same political colour, including the effective power to dismiss a cabinet, but much less in cases of cohabitation The President has the power to dissolve the National Assembly and call new elections, but no more than once per year.

The Judiciary There are multiple final courts in France, each with its own jurisdiction. Constitutional amendment procedure A constitutional amendment can be proposed by the President on advice of the Prime Minister or by members of parliament. System of Government under the Constitution. More news. Voices from the field. During the period between the French Revolution of and the adoption of the Constitution of , France had fifteen different constitutions, [5] fluctuating from parliamentary democracy to authoritarian rule.

Other modern constitutions have attracted attention as progressive and enlightened charters for government, particularly the post-war German Constitution the Grundgesetz [13] and the more recent South African Constitution.

The French experience with the Constitution of , however, allows us to focus on an aspect of constitutionalism that is equally, if not more, important in the long run: the entrenchment of constitutionalism in a nation that lacked that tradition, and was even hostile to it, [20] through the peaceful evolution of institutional structures and the expansion and judicial enforcement of protected values.

The dynamics of this constitutional evolution, occurring as it did through a combination of constitutional amendment, constitutional jurisprudence, and the practice of established institutions allows us to observe the process of legal adaptation to new political, economic, and social perspectives and realities that is often so troublesome for political societies. The establishment of a particular constitutional order does not mark the end of history, politics both within the established order and challenges to it , or economic, social, demographic, ideological, or cultural change.

This is so important because the replacement of one constitutional regime with another usually occurs after a period of instability, often accompanied by violence, during which the established order is unable to adapt to or to accommodate change. In response to these changes and the perceived inability of existing political structures to accommodate them, many people called for the adoption of a new Constitution and the establishment of a Sixth Republic.

In July , the Constitution was substantially amended to take account of these new developments, needs, ideas, and values. The principal thrusts of the July amendments were to better define and control the power of the executive, to increase the powers of Parliament, and to better assure the protection of fundamental rights. The American and French experiences provide excellent examples of how different constitutional systems react to change.

For the most part, the American system has been successful in containing change within established structures. Contending forces contest their interests and views within the legislative and judicial chambers of government, rather than in the streets or on the barricades.

This is so largely because of the role played by the United States Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. The most notable failure of the American constitutional system to accommodate contending forces within established structures was the crisis which ultimately led to the Civil War.

The constitutional system that emerged from the crucible of the Civil War, with the addition of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and the enactment of numerous Reconstruction laws, fundamentally altered the American social contract and in fact might—if the United States shared the French propensity for rupture and numeration rather than seeking to preserve the appearance of continuity —very well be called the Second Republic.

Until the establishment of the Fifth Republic in , and really not until the famous Freedom of Association decision of the Constitutional Council in [35] and the equally crucial constitutional amendment that allowed opposition legislators to refer a parliamentary enactment to the Council, [36] France did not have an effective system for the judicial application and modification of its Constitution through interpretation. Throughout its post-revolutionary history prior to the adoption of the Constitution of , constitutional change was effected either by legislative amendment or by the adoption of a new constitution.

It is hard to speak of a true constitutional order if the constitution can be altered by ordinary law; in such case, the constitution is continually subject to the vicissitudes of the political process. Moreover, if the constitution cannot be interpreted to accommodate change, it ceases to be a useful framework for political life.

It is thus no accident that since the Revolution, France has had so many different constitutions. In almost all cases, the adoption of a new constitution was accompanied by significant political and social disorder, and often by violence.

In effect, the winners impose a constitutional order on the losers. Since constitution-making is not regarded as a one-time enterprise, the losers can look forward to other chances in the future. Why, then, give one's allegiance to the particular constitution that has been adopted?

After all, it represents the triumph of the political opposition. The European Union EU provides an example of a constitutional system that has responded to change by a combination of judicial and political means. Constitutional developments in France since have taken a somewhat analogous course, with constitutional change and accommodation occurring through a combination of legal constitutional jurisprudence and political constitutional revision mechanisms.

Another important modality of adaptation has been institutional practice. The French Constitution of strikes a good balance between rigidity and flexibility. Three constitutional amendments prior to the major revisions of July brought about significant changes in the structure and operation of French political institutions.

The original Constitution provided for the indirect election of the president by an electoral college composed of about 80, elected officials—deputies and senators, members of departmental and municipal councils, and mayors. In the Constitution was amended to provide for the direct election of the president by universal suffrage. The constitutional amendment of was approved by a presidentially initiated referendum, in apparent violation of article 89 of the Constitution.

In the Constitution was amended to allow sixty deputies or sixty senators to refer a recently enacted law to the Constitutional Council for review of its constitutionality prior to its promulgation by the president of the Republic. This amendment accorded considerably more influence to the minority opposition party in the legislature, as it could now challenge the constitutionality of laws before their promulgation.

It also greatly enhanced the role of the Constitutional Council, since now it was able to review almost all important parliamentary enactments for their constitutionality.

In the Constitution was amended to reduce the term of the president from seven years to five years. This near simultaneity of presidential and legislative elections greatly reduces the chance that different political parties would control the presidency and the National Assembly, and hence the possibility of cohabitation.

The power of the president has thus been significantly enhanced at the expense of Parliament. According to the Constitution, if the Constitutional Council decides that an international engagement would violate the Constitution, France cannot undertake that international engagement without a prior modification of the Constitution. In July the Constitution underwent major revisions, the purpose of which was to better define the relationship between the institutions of government, to enhance democracy by according more power to the Parliament, and to facilitate the vindication of rights by citizens through the judicial process.

One of the principal vices of the Fourth Republic in the eyes of General de Gaulle and his allies was the power of Parliament to interfere with the proper functioning of the executive branch, leading to incoherence in governmental policy and sapping the French state of the ability to effectively confront domestic and foreign challenges.

To remedy this defect, the Constitution of did several things. First, it accorded to the Government an autonomous regulatory sphere in which it had legislative-type power to enact rules and also the power to implement the rules established by Parliament. Finally, the Government possessed a powerful device to have its legislation enacted, by, in effect, challenging the National Assembly to either accept a Government bill or to overturn its own Government by a vote of no-confidence.

In spite of the original purposes for which the Constitutional Council was established, and which it fulfilled from on, [78] the Council soon undertook the more significant and controversial function of reviewing just-enacted legislation but before its promulgation by the president of the Republic for its conformity to the substantive provisions of the Constitution. In its most important decision to date, the Freedom of Association decision of July 16, , [79] the Council struck down a parliamentary enactment on the ground that it violated a substantive principle of constitutional status.

Since , the Constitutional Council has played a major role in the legislative process, [81] interpreting and applying the Constitution and other principles with constitutional status valeur constitutionnelle to just-enacted legislation. Now that minority deputies and senators can refer laws to the Council, almost all important legislative enactments receive its scrutiny for their constitutionality.

In conducting this review, the Council, of necessity, interprets and develops the Constitution—both in its decisions that have separation of powers implications and those affecting matters of substantive law. Here are some examples. Although originally established to assure that Parliament did not interfere with the executive power, the Council has often interpreted the Constitution to enlarge parliamentary competence.

For example, in its R. According to the Constitution, however, fines for misdemeanors contraventions fall clearly within the domain of the regulatory power of the Government.

When the Council regarded legislative power as overreaching or inappropriately exercised, it interpreted the Constitution to impose significant limitations. Also, the Council has not been hesitant to construe its jurisdiction broadly in order to preserve the constitutional separation of powers scheme.

For example, in a decision, the Council held that it could review an ordinance for its constitutionality even through Parliament had not enacted a law to approve the ordinance. As such they are not subject to review by the Constitutional Council, but may be reviewed by the Council of State. Ordinances which have been ratified by Parliament may be reviewed by the Constitutional Council for their constitutionality if the ratifying statute is referred to the Council. In its decision, the Constitutional Council extended its jurisdiction to review ordinances that had not been ratified by Parliament if a subsequent statute presupposing the validity of the ordinance is referred to the Council.

But expansive, facilitative interpretation has its limits. Where the Constitution is clear, in spite of political consensus and contemporary needs and values to the contrary, the Council enforces the constitutional scheme. In its Gender Quotas I decision of and Gender Quotas II decision of , the Council also found laws to advance gender equality to violate the constitutional principle of equality.

The jurisprudence of the Council demonstrates that the Constitution can be adapted to changing needs and values, but only up to a point. Then, constitutional change must occur through the political process, i.

Perhaps it is the vagueness of the Constitution regarding the relationship between president and prime minister that has allowed successive presidents and prime ministers to tailor their relationship to suit the political environment of the time. The Constitution as applied by the Constitutional Council has had little relevance in defining the relationship between president and prime minister during periods of cohabitation.

The president is elected by the people and is responsible to them. One thing is certain, however: article 5 clearly rejects a ceremonial or passive conception of the presidency and instead expresses a dynamic, active conception of the presidential office.

The legislative elections of March resulted in a small majority for the parties of the Right in the National Assembly. This was the first time since the inception of the Fifth Republic in that the president and the prime minister were from opposing parties.

This cohabitation was particularly tense and difficult for two principal reasons: first, the incoming Government of the Right wanted to make significant changes in some of the policies of the preceding Governments of the Left most importantly, to privatize large sectors of the economy that had recently been nationalized ; and second, President Mitterrand intended to seek reelection in , and Prime Minister Chirac was almost certainly going to be the opposing candidate.

A potential constitutional crisis arose early in the Mitterrand-Chirac cohabitation. On March 20, , Prime Minister Chirac announced that he intended to submit two laws to Parliament authorizing the Government to legislate by ordinances. In particular, in order to accomplish with the least delay the recovery of the country and to make our institutions more effective, two authorization laws will be submitted to Parliament authorizing the Government to legislate by ordinances So I think that ordinances, which