Federalism vs. Jacobinism and Republican Monarchy?

The APROFED association is coming back to you this weekend on the very French opposition since the French Revolution between federalism and Jacobinism as well as the republican monarchy.

As explained in our article on federalism in the history of France (see Federalism in the history of France – APROFED ), this notion was carried in 1791 by deputies called: “the Girondins ”, who argued for autonomy for the provinces (current regions) and the establishment of a federal government within a sovereign State, like the United States, any young State having just acquired its independence by signing its Constitution.

If unfortunately, this project never saw the light of day , giving way to the Reign of Terror, implemented by their adversaries, the Montagnard deputies, followers of a so-called Jacobin power, namely strong and centralized in Paris, few people know that there actually existed a “Jacobin federalism” as Jacques Guilhaumou, historian, demonstrates to us in his analysis of the revolutionary speeches of 1793 in Marseille (cf. Jacobin federalism and sectional federalism in Marseille in 1793 (analysis of the speech) ), thus allowing us to observe that federalism and Jacobinism are not, after all, so far removed from each other.

Federalism being a concept aimed at distributing the management of power , the Jacobin republicans of the city of Marseille , following the death of the King, made it clear to the deputies sitting in Paris that it would be wise to share power not with the provinces as the Girondins demanded, but with the establishment of an Executive power in order to counterbalance the legislative power and prevent it from becoming despotic.

With the establishment of the 5th Republic , almost 150 years later, with a military man at its head (Gal de Gaulle), France obtained a strong executive power as the Marseille republicans of the Revolution had wished, perhaps even too strong, shifting power from the hands of the assembly to the hands of a single man , which led to France paradoxically being described since as a “republican monarchy” and its president as a “republican monarch”.

So, for AI, these expressions emerged for the following reasons:

1. Concentration of powers in the hands of the president

Under the Fifth Republic (since 1958), the President of the Republic has very extensive powers , including:

• • He appoints the Prime Minister and can dismiss him.

• • He can dissolve the National Assembly.

• • He chairs the Council of Ministers.

• • It may resort to a referendum (article 11).

• • He can use full powers in the event of a serious crisis (article 16).

• • He is head of the armed forces and holds nuclear weapons.

This gives an image of a very powerful head of state , sometimes compared to a monarch .

2. An elected president with a royal air

• • The presidential style may appear monarchical: ceremonial, symbolic authority, centrality in political life.

• • Certain periods have reinforced this perception, notably with presidents like Charles de Gaulle , François Mitterrand or Emmanuel Macron , who had a style considered vertical and centralizing .

3. An institutional paradox

• • The Republic is based on the idea that power comes from the people, that there is a separation of powers, and that institutions avoid concentration.

• • But in practice, with the election of the president by direct universal suffrage since 1962 , the president is legitimized directly by the people , which gives him an almost personal authority , difficult to counterbalance.

4. Origin of the expression “republican monarch”

• • This expression is often attributed to Maurice Duverger , a political scientist who studied political regimes.

• • It aims to designate a presidential function which, although evolving within a republican framework, concentrates prerogatives close to those of a constitutional monarch.

In summary

• • “Republican monarchy” or “republican monarch” = critical or analytical expressions to designate the imbalance of powers in favor of the president in a regime that is nevertheless republican.

• • They reveal a tension between the republican spirit (equality, control of power, popular sovereignty) and the reality of a very strong executive centered around the president .

Here is an explanation of Emmanuel Macron’s role in the perspective of the “republican monarch” , with concrete examples illustrating why this expression is often associated with him:

Emmanuel Macron, the embodiment of the “republican monarch”

1. A very vertical exercise of power

Since his election in 2017, Emmanuel Macron has claimed a strong, centralized presidential style :

“The president must preside” (speech at Versailles in July 2017).

• • It centralizes decisions at the Élysée, even on issues normally delegated to ministries.

• • The Prime Minister is often seen as a “collaborator” rather than an autonomous head of government (like Édouard Philippe, Jean Castex or Élisabeth Borne).

2. The staging of presidential authority

Macron is cultivating his presidential image, with symbols sometimes considered monarchical :

• • Speech at the Congress of Versailles (as Louis XIV would have done at the time), on several occasions.

• • Staging of power (walking alone in the courtyard of the Louvre during his inauguration).

• • A very personal approach to state affairs: he often speaks in the first person singular on matters of national and international politics.

3. Intensive use of presidential institutions

• • He dissolved the National Assembly in June 2024, like Charles de Gaulle in 1968 or Jacques Chirac in 1997, which is a rare and very symbolic power.

• • He has repeatedly used Article 49.3 (by his Prime Ministers), which reinforces the authoritarian character of the executive .

• • On the pension reform in 2023, he maintained the reform despite broad social and parliamentary opposition, via constitutional but politically contested procedures.

4. A personalized presidency

• • Macron governs with a small circle of loyalists , which reinforces the perception of a power outside the traditional parties and lacking collegiality.

• • He poses as a “Jupiterian” president , above the political fray. He assumed this from the start:

“France is not reformable… The French hate reforms.”
— Emmanuel Macron, reported in 2018.

In summary: why Macron is called a “republican monarch”

Thus, if during the revolutionary period, federalism was fought by the members of the National Assembly, today it is fought by the one who holds power, namely the executive itself.

It should also be recalled that the judgment wrongly made against the federalist Girondins, stigmatizing them as counter-revolutionaries, dismemberers of the nation, traitors, turns out to be in reality due to an error of timing and unfortunate alliances.

Indeed, following the sudden decision to kill the King, who had been imprisoned until then, the deputies of the assembly, who had been thinking until then about how to organize power, hesitating between centralism and federalism, found themselves faced with the fait accompli of managing the power left vacant. The death of the king having led to belligerent reactions from most European states headed by monarchies, the Montagnard deputies rightly considered the nation in danger and therefore centralized power in order to coordinate the defense of the homeland. Unfortunately, some Girondins from Occitania, Normandy, Vendée, Brittany, … in other words from the outskirts of Paris, did not measure the danger and, eager to establish federalism as a mode of internal management of France, went so far as to associate with monarchists in order to apply the concept in their respective regions without the approval of Paris, which was perceived as an act of treason.

However, the problem today is that France is not threatened by any imminent danger and the executive power in place is constantly hiding behind socio-economic, health crises, etc. which it maintains in order not to give power back to the regions and subordinate communities, thus opposing without any real apparent reason the notion of federalism, while on the contrary a large number of its European neighbors are calling for this change.

It is worth remembering that many monarchies have fallen as a result of popular uprisings , motivated by poverty, social injustice, or absolutism. Some monarchies have been abolished peacefully through reforms or democratic votes. Military or political factions have sometimes overthrown the monarchy. Corruption, nepotism, or an inability to adapt to social change have also undermined some monarchies.

Thus, monarchies generally fall when they fail to adapt , become isolated from the people , or are perceived as obstacles to progress or justice . Those that have survived have often accepted profound reforms and transformed themselves.

The association also points out that although monarchy and federalism represent two different forms of political organization, these two systems have sometimes coexisted. Monarchies have integrated federal elements to maintain unity in composite or multi-ethnic states (e.g., the Holy Roman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire). Federalism and monarchy are not necessarily incompatible. There are several federal countries that are still monarchies. These are generally constitutional monarchies, where the king/queen has a primarily symbolic role. Notable examples:

1. 1. Canada – Federal constitutional monarchy (United Kingdom as symbolic head).

1. 1. Australia – Same, federal monarchy with the Queen (or King) of the United Kingdom as head of state.

1. 1. Malaysia – Single Federal Monarchy: It is a federation of monarchies (the sultans of the federated states elect a king every 5 years).

1. 1. Belgium – Federal monarchy since the constitutional reforms of 1993, with autonomous regions and communities.

1. 1. United Arab Emirates – Federation of hereditary monarchies (emirs), with a president elected from among themselves.

1. 1. Spain – Officially a “highly decentralized” state, sometimes considered quasi-federal (kingdom with powerful autonomous communities).

Historically, there has been tension in absolutist regimes, but today many modern constitutional monarchies adopt federal structures. Federalism has sometimes replaced monarchy in revolutionary or republican contexts , but it can also exist alongside a monarchy , especially a symbolic or representative one.

Thus, like the peripheral provinces of Paris during the Revolution, the association notes that it is once again these regions, added to those overseas, which are asking to establish a French federal Republic such as:

– Grégory Berkovicz, en Normandie,

– Emmanuel Faivre, in Burgundy-Franche-Comté,

– Frédéric Masquelier, in Provence-Alpes-Côtes d’Azur,

– Tavini, in French Polynesia,

– our association or Philippe Buteri de Preville (cf. Home page | republiquefederalefrancaise ) in New Caledonia,

– etc.

The association believes that it is time to move to a 6th Republic which would be federal, preferring that this be done peacefully through reforms or a democratic vote rather than a new revolution where the Kanaks would play the role of the sans-culottes, especially since they already play the role of the irreducible resistance still and always against the invader.

We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.

L’association APROFED.