1. Page 1
Owen Phelps
European Politics
Testoni
3/10/14
The Strengths and Weaknesses of
the French Presidential System
The Revolution of 1789 sought to end the absolute rule of a corrupt king, and instill within
France, a new democratic government based on freedom, equality, checked by accountability to the
citizens. While the initial attempts were foiled with the likes of the despotic Robespierre, and the
imperious Napoleon, France’s republic began to gradually establish itself during the latter half of the
19 century (Almond 140). However – and somewhat ironically – France has never been able to
remove itself from the care of strong leaders. Even now, the Executive Office reflects that legacy,
with the President of the Republic being almost politically impervious. While this allows the
President of France to focus on matters more pressing than political survival, the strength of the
office seems to come at the expense of the political liberty that was so sourly sought after in the 18th
century.
The strengths of the Presidential system of France are centralized within the President’s
untouchable office. Unlike other democratic systems such as that of Great Britain and the United
States, which constrains their executive branch with means of removing them from office, the French
President’s imperviousness means it is able to rule more decisively (Colomer 70). This was a focal
point of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, which was established in direct contention with the
Fourth Republic’s incessant indecisiveness: “It brought in strong leadership at national level that
served as a model for other social and political institutions – to the extent that authority and
efficiency were promoted everywhere at the expense of pluralism and collegiality.” (Colomer 96).

2. Page 2
This does not only demonstrate a link with France’s strongman traditions, but is also a reflection of
the mentality of General Charles de Gaulle – the main drafter of the Fifth Republic’s constitution
(Almond 143). Charles De Gaulle saw the past Republican attempts at governing as inefficient, and
unpredictable: the parliament of previous Republics had almost total authority (the executive office
was merely an ornament), and its members were constantly vying for control and power, thus
bringing gridlock and instability to France (Almond 143). Charles De Gaulle saw a remedy to this
ineffectual, and polarized form of governing by establishing the executive office as a clear, and
authoritative head of the French state (Almond 144). This allows for the President to tend to urgent
matters of state, and to pass resolutions when needed – rather than wait for consensus from
Parliament.
The main principle of establishing such a robust executive office was to unite the entire
country under a single head of state that would represent all of the French people – not just party
interests. The idea is akin to the British use of the monarch as the head of state, though in France’s
case, there is a stronger political element: “As guardian of the constitution, he was to be an arbiter
who would rely on other powers – Parliament, the Cabinet, or the people – for the full weight of
government action.” (Almond 144). In theory, the President is a mediator; he is to bridge political
chasms, and bring the country together as one whole people – hence why he is elected directly by the
people, rather than an electoral college (Almond 144). Whether or not that is the case (as party lines
still exist, and ideologies cannot be so easily reconciled), the idea behind an all-encompassing
executive to lead the nation is a drastic change from the political insecurity which plagued the
previous beleaguered French Republics (Almond 141).
However, these powers entrusted to the executive branch are not the only abilities that the
office possesses in order to keep the political arena stable and united; the President’s apparatus of
power includes the capacity to “submit certain important pieces of legislation to the electorate as a
referendum, and after consultation with the Prime Minister… he [the President] could dissolve

3. Page 3
Parliament, and call for new elections.” (Almond 144). This not only allows for the President to
refresh the political arena of which he has to work with (in the event of cohabitation where the
President and majority party are of two opposing ideologies) (Colomer 94), but helps the President
push through legislation just in case of events of gridlock, or political stagnation – the primary
function of the office. The President also has a slew of Emergency Powers at his disposal, should
decisive action be required during extreme situations (such as during the Algerian War, where
President Charles de Gaulle enacted emergency powers when the Generals rebelled) (Almond 144).
So far, in the Fifth Republic’s history, emergency powers have only been used once, and Parliament
has been dissolved twice (Almond 144).
While the Presidential office was primarily established as a reaction against the
indecisiveness of the Fourth Republic, there are certain elements of weaknesses of such a system. For
instance, due to such concentration of power residing in the Executive Office, the office itself
undermines the democratic institutions of the Republic. For instance, the ability to dissolve
Parliament to strengthen one’s position appears – and in practice is – more authoritarian in nature
rather than democratic. During the two instances of when it was carried out by De Gaulle, both times
were to bolster the President’s position: “…de Gaulle dissolved Parliament twice, each time to
exploit a political opportunity to strengthen the majority supporting presidential politics.” (Almond
144). However, De Gaulle wasn’t the only President to exploit a political opportunity to grant his
coalition a Lion’s share of power; the Socialist Francois Mitterrand did away with the national
assembly twice , so that his party could secure a majority in the government, which would make
passing legislation easier (Almond 144). Jacques Chirac also attempted to establish a conservative
majority in 1997, though his gambit failed (Almond 144).
Another such example is the high degree of authority that the President exercises over the
French Legislature: “Many areas of modern life that in other democracies are regulated by laws
debated and approved by Parliament are turned over to rule making by the executive in France.”

4. Page 4
(Almond 146). To some degree, the Presidential’s office is able to practically nullify another branch
of government, which brings into question why even bother having a Parliament at all? The answer
returns to the past, of which the Fifth Republic is attempting to break from: “The instability of
previous regimes had been attributed mostly to the constant meddling of Parliament with the
activities of the Executive.” (Almond 146). It is in the name of political stability – though at the
expense of democracy – which has solidified the Executive branch of the French government into
such a political powerhouse, though at the cost of popular sovereignty.
Another weakness – and perhaps, the primary symptom that all centralized political
authorities suffer from – is that much of the Presidential Office is constrained by the personality, and
competence, of the President. If the President is weak, or indecisive himself, he effectively becomes
the very illness that the Fifth Republic attempted to cure. Worse still, is that due to the high degree of
political centralization, such ineptitude would be felt throughout the entire country, as local officials
power is generally usurped from them by the President (ironically enough, the highest proportion of
trust that the French people have in regards to government is with their local officials) (Almond 147).
What further exacerbates this problem is that there are no safeguards instilled to remove the President
from the office if he becomes part of the political gridlock. The only mechanism that will eventually
remedy such a situation is when his term expires (Almond 144).
De Gaulle once famously remarked that France is “Weighed down by history” (Almond
147), and such a sentiment appears vividly within the framework of the political frame of the French
government. While the Fifth Republic is foremost a reaction against the past, and an attempt to
remedy the instability and indecisiveness of the Fourth Republic, it seems as though the “cure” of
which De Gaulle thought up was a little shortsighted. While there is a good argument to be made that
the French system works effectively with the right people in the right places, the main issue is that
such a system relies on a complete gamble based on the qualities of the person who becomes
President. As stated previously, the French President is politically untouchable, and yields

5. Page 5
considerable weight in Legislative matters, and can dissolve Parliament to ensure his majority wins
the election – which has happened more than once. On top of that, if the President appears weak and
indecisive (and thus, causes a domino effect across the other branches of government), the only
method of removing him from office is to wait out the term of 5 years. Perhaps it’s a sign of the
future that the French government reduced the French President’s term of office from seven years to
five (Almond 145). Yet, for now, the French must continue to shoulder the burden of history.
Bibliography
Colomer, Joseph M., Comparative European Politics (3rd Edition), New York: Routledge, 2008.
Almond, Gabriel A., Russell J Dalton, G. Bingham Powell, European Politics Today (2nd
Edition), New York: Longman, 2002.