France and
Germany’s differing constitutions have resulted in their executives holding different emphasis on the role of the president and the prime minister and the power that they hold over the parliament. For example,
Germany has a greater separation of powers, where the president is confined to state matters and the prime minister (chancellor) maintaining domestic policy. In
France however, the president has significantly greater control, being both Head of State and with the most domestic control. Their relationships between the executive and parliament reflect how the leaders and cabinet are able to act. While both the French President and German Chancellor are able to choose the members of the cabinet, the German Chancellor has less control and has to keep one eye on parliament. Being elected by popular mandate, the French President does not have this problem and has the added influence of being able to choose the prime minister as well. On the other hand, similarities do exist.
Both presidents have similar roles as Heads of State and they are looked to as spiritual leaders, or guardians of a national ideal. Constitutional checks can still reign in the French President.
The Fourth Republic of France was held hostage by a leaderless parliament. The executive and the National Assembly’s ability to get bogged down by petty squabbles left it both weak and unrepresentative. For example, in the twelve years of the Fourth Republic there were 25 different governments, as political infighting made it impossible to meter out any stable coalition, with the president spending much of his time trying to hold together the parliament. Wright claims the difficulty in parliament choosing a president meant that “they were seen as the creatures and prisoners of the members of parliament who had elected them and who, when choosing the president, had sought to avoid the election of a strong personality – a man who might prove a danger both to the privileges and prerogatives of parliament and to the republic itself”. For example, it took Rene Cote, the last president of the Fourth Republic thirteen ballots in order to get elected, a waste of time and a battering to any political leader’s prestige. It is also put across that any “presidential power was exercised only so long as it was tolerated by parliament and the government”.
The Weimar government of the 1920s and 1930s was Germany’s first attempt at democracy. There were a great deal of flaws which made it a highly unstable political environment. For example, majorities of opponents frequently combined their votes to remove an incumbent chancellor, creating the instability which eventually paved the way for extremist groups like the Nazis to gain support. In 1934 Hitler similarly took advantage of President von Hindenburg’s death to assert himself as Head of State. Hogwood backs up these claims, asserting that these experiences “served as a warning against the concentration of state power under a single leader.”
The French solution to this political instability was to strengthen the presidency, resulting in an example of ‘semi presidential’ government, in which a “president with some executive powers” works extensively with the prime minister to guide government policy. Hogwood feels that in the Fifth Republic electoral politics “came to be dominated by presidential rather than parliamentary election.” The main reason for this level of control is because the president is directly elected by the people. This gives the leader a personal mandate, as “a direct election confers legitimacy on the president, giving the incumbent a sound basis of office.” This is particularly so as the electoral process requires up to two rounds of elections, until a candidate receives a majority of the vote.
Germany’s constitution drafters were at pains to create both an assertive parliament and an assertive government. Their solution was to create Chancellor Democracy. Unlike France, both the President and the Chancellor are indirectly elected. The president is chosen by Electoral College, whilst the chancellor was picked from a majority coalition in the Bundestag. This is in order to “create a balanced and stable system of government in which the executive could not act arbitrarily as it had during the Third Reich.” Although the chancellor was previously elected in that manner there were a number of important changes. Firstly, it was only possible to remove the chancellor if there was a majority agreeing his successor. What Hogwood describes as a ‘constructive vote of no confidence’ helps to avoid the possibility of a power vacuum. The cap on the German President being only allowed two terms of office has proved to be a leash on any politician from exerting his influence for too long. Similarly, another important development was the “clear demarcation of the executive”, as the president has been confined to a merely ceremonial role as head of state.
Both the French and German President’s roles as Head of State are fairly similar and have had successes, both internationally and domestically. For example, the French and German Presidents have been vocal recently in their opposition to the Iraqi war. Domestically, they have similar success representing some form of ideal of the national spirit.
Wright claims that the French President is the “guardian of national interest, the leader of the nation, the physical embodiment of its traditions and its continuity and the guide to its future actions.” For example, the French President, Jacques Chirac has been very vocal in removing religious clothing in the workplace.
Having to deal with the ghosts of Nazism and the unification of Germany in the 90s the German President has an even more critical task. Hogwood highlights this, claiming that “West German presidents took on the role of the guardian of the country’s conscious and morale, working particularly for the people’s moral rehabilitation from war guilt”. Ironically though, she goes on to point out how this created friction with the East Germans. This is because the East Germans were taught that they were working class, and consequentially they were victims. West Germans’ demands for a similar process is often interpreted as “western triumphalism over the fall of the former GDR”, causing great friction in the country.
The French President has significant control over parliamentary process. He has control over patronage, choosing both the prime minister and the members of the cabinet, effectively controlling the direction of the executive. The President also has powers to dissolve the National Assembly and oversee the calling of referendums. Hogwood feels that “as long as the president had a sympathetic majority in parliament, he could in practice appoint and dismiss parliament.” This is backed up by Wright, who asserts that “prime ministers and ministers have been appointed and dismissed without consultation and prime ministerial advice and objections ignored.” This is because he is elected by the people and does not hold any loyalties to parliament, which enables the president to avoid or break parliamentary deadlock more effectively. On the other hand, the French President still does have constitutional checks. For example, the ability to dissolve the National Assembly is only allowed once a year. Similarly, the constitutional checks which have increasingly been ignored by the presidents could easily be returned at any point from an aggressive parliament. The prime minister merely works for the president, attempting to negotiate his policies with the National Assembly.
The German Chancellor has the constitutional right to “determine the general lines of the government’s policy programme”. Like the French President the German Chancellor is able to choose his cabinet and although he is unable to interfere with the ministers’ departments they can “have the upper hand in this balance of responsibilities, because they can reshuffle the cabinet to get their own way.” Also, the executive can bypass the Bundestag’s scrutiny by using committees and the federal system. However, unlike France, Germany’s executive power comes from lower levels upwards. The chancellor is chosen from the majority coalition of parties, taking into account a wide array of German regions (many political parties are regional), and social and economic differences. He is also most likely to have a more conciliatory and encompassing position to have got elected as prime minister in the first place. As a result, unlike the French President when choosing the cabinet the German Chancellor has to keep one eye on the coalition, as his coalition may fall apart if he upsets even minor parties. Hogwood extends the chancellor’s situation, pointing out that when there are many parties involved in a coalition the chancellor “is more likely to take on the character of a co-ordinator rather than the director of government policy.”
Historical events have resulted in the French and German executives appearing so different. As a result France’s executive is more dynamic, as the president is able to make decisions without the need to appease parliament. Germany’s executive is more considered, with most actions being done with the general support of the Bundestag. Consequentially, whereas France’s President leads government policy, Germany’s Chancellor, despite his great level of control can only merely guide it.
This essay was written by Jonathan McHugh in April 2004
Posts
