France, an imperfect democracy

Hello everyone,

The APROFED association is contacting you again this week following the decision by the Minister for Overseas Territories not to amend the draft Bougival agreement before the citizen consultation scheduled for March 2026 in New Caledonia (see Electoral body, version of the agreement… The questions raised by the announcement of an early citizen consultation | Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes ) as requested by certain pro-independence parties such as PALIKA and the UPM of the UNI.

Signed in July 2025 and registered in the Official Journal in September of the same year, the State has therefore decided, within this period of 6 to 8 months, not to respond to the demands of a part of the Caledonian population, to amend the Bougival project, wanting to make us believe that the entire responsibility for the institutional blockage lay with the FLNKS and its main component which is the UC, denoting the extremist and uncompromising character of the State, a qualification which it itself uses towards the FLNKS.

This childish attitude of wanting to impose one’s point of view on the other thus reflects well the status of imperfect democracy which qualifies France for 2024 .

Indeed, since the beginning of the 2000s, there has been a so-called democracy index , created by a British press group which studies each year nearly 167 countries and territories around the world according to 60 criteria grouped into 5 categories on a scale of 0 to 10. Countries approaching 0 are totalitarian countries and those of 10 are countries with a perfect, so-called full-fledged democracy.

In 2024, France, with a score below 8 out of 10, will be among the countries classified as having an imperfect democracy. From 2007 to 2024, France experienced only six years of perfect democracy.

“Imperfect democracies” are states where elections are transparent and free and fundamental freedoms are recognized, but violations of these freedoms can still be observed (for example, attacks on press freedom or restrictions on political opposition and criticism). These states also have significant shortcomings in other democratic aspects, such as an insufficient political culture, low levels of political participation, and/or problems in the functioning of their government (see Democracy Index — Wikipedia ).

In any case, it is clear that the handling of the New Caledonian and overseas territories issue is unlikely to improve this rating for 2025.

The association does, however, wish to emphasize that in this ranking, Australia , New Caledonia’s neighbor, is ranked 14th and has a better score than France, which occupies 23rd place. New Zealand even makes it onto the podium in 2nd place, between Norway and Iceland.

The French state’s maneuvers to unfreeze the electoral roll in order to continue and increase migration flows to New Caledonia, in violation of UN agreements on the matter which it itself signed, reveal the true limits of French democracy, which in New Caledonia is more akin to a democracy of self-interest aimed at maintaining control over the territory. Furthermore, the use of force to quell the uprising, rather than political negotiation to try to prevent it, demonstrates how readily France disregards Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, leading some, particularly within the Kanak population, to question the difference between France and a totalitarian state like Russia, thus proving that “there is no rigid boundary between democracy and dictatorship” (see Usbek & Rica – “There is no rigid boundary between democracy and dictatorship” ).

The most striking example illustrating France’s accommodation of democracy to its own liking is the upcoming citizen consultation on the Bougival draft agreement, scheduled for March 2026, the same day as the municipal elections.

We asked the AI ​​whether it was possible in France to hold both a municipal election and a citizen consultation on the same day. Its response is below:

In France, it is not possible — or at least it is not in principle permitted to organize a citizen consultation (or a local referendum / “consultation of voters”) on the same day as municipal elections. 

What the law says

• The procedure for consulting voters is governed by articles L1112-15 to L1112-22 of the General Code of Local Authorities (CGCT).

• But the CGCT also indicates that “no consultation can take place … during election campaigns or on election days” . 

• In other words: if municipal elections are planned — with campaigning, summoning of voters, polling station, etc. — a citizen consultation cannot take place on the same day. 

Why this ban?

The legal framework aims to prevent confusion of objectives and the risk of political manipulation : an election (choosing representatives) cannot be combined with a local consultative/political vote (opinion on a measure) on the same day. This ensures that each type of vote—election vs. consultation—remains distinct, transparent, and neutral. 

Conclusion

Holding a municipal election and a citizen consultation (consultation for the opinion of voters or local referendum) simultaneously on the same day is prohibited in France.

We asked the AI ​​to check if there were any exceptions (in overseas territories, very small municipalities, or in specific circumstances) that could validate or qualify the ban. Here is its response again:

I’ve looked at the legislation, and I haven’t found a clear-cut legal situation in which a citizen consultation (or referendum/local consultation) can be held on the exact same day as a regular municipal election—even in “special” cases or for overseas territories. Here’s what we know—which leads us to conclude that no, there is no known exception .

What the law stipulates — a near-total ban

• Article L1112-15 of the General Code of Local Authorities (CGCT) governs the “consultation for opinion of voters”: the municipality can consult its inhabitants for opinion on decisions falling within its jurisdiction. 

• But this same legislation provides for strict limitations : a consultation (or a local referendum) cannot “take place during the campaign or on election day”. 

• In practical terms: for municipalities, the organisation of a consultation is subject to a deliberation by the municipal council, transmitted to the representative of the State at least two months before the chosen date. 

• In other words: a consultation cannot be scheduled on the same day as an election vote, because that would violate these scheduling provisions. 

The specific cases sometimes mentioned — but prohibited by the legal framework

• The consultation process is sometimes used for sensitive issues, such as the creation of a “new municipality” (merger of municipalities). In this case, voters can be consulted. 

• But even for these consultations, the calendar rules apply: the consultation cannot fall during the election period or on the day of an election. 

• Furthermore, the legislation on “local referendums” (mechanisms which are somewhat more formal than “consultation for advice”) clearly states that they cannot take place during the last six months preceding municipal elections, nor during the campaign or on election day.

Regarding overseas collectivities or special territories (such as New Caledonia)

• The texts governing consultation and local referendum (CGCT + organic laws) apply generally to local authorities, including in the DOM-COM or overseas collectivities. 

• I have not seen any explicit exception in these texts that would authorize a consultation on the same day as a municipal election or a local vote.

• Even in special cases (change of community, merger, special status, etc.): the constraints of schedule and organisation remain applicable.

Conclusion — No known exceptions

Based on current legislation (CGCT, organic laws, institutional case law), there is no legal exception allowing a citizen consultation / local referendum to be organized on the same day as a municipal election — whether in metropolitan France or overseas.

The AI ​​also checked case law from the last 10 to 15 years . Here is its response again:

I searched for case law and official sources. The bottom line: I found no court decision authorizing a citizen consultation on the same day as a municipal election ; on the contrary, the legal framework and judicial practice confirm the prohibition and the risks of annulment/suspension in case of non-compliance with the scheduling rules.

Key points (with sources):

1. The General Code of Local Authorities strictly regulates the consultation of voters (articles L1112-15 et seq.) and provides for procedural guarantees — in particular the jurisdiction of the administrative judge to control these consultations.

2. The authorities (prefecture, associations of elected officials) and practical guides remind voters that local consultations/referendums must not be held during the election campaign or on election day , and that specific deadlines and notification procedures apply. The state representative may refer the decision to the administrative court.

3. The administrative judge (administrative court, and on appeal the Council of State) plays an active role: they can suspend a consultation or annul electoral operations if serious irregularities are found—and recent case law illustrates the strict scrutiny of the conditions under which ballots are organized. However, I have not found any case law that deems the simultaneous holding of a consultation and an election valid.

Short conclusion: no known case law exception — organizing a citizen consultation on the same day as a municipal election exposes one to a prefectural referral, a request for suspension and, potentially, to annulment.

Thus, the French State seems ready to take a measure tainted by illegality, even if it means the vote is considered null and void, in order to nevertheless obtain a result which, in the event of a boycott by the pro-independence parties, risks resembling a Stalinist score , as in the 3rd referendum in December 2021, and impacting in turn the municipal election taking place on the same day, which is also very likely to be tainted by irregularities , reinforcing the democratic denial in which the State has placed New Caledonia and demonstrating to the Caledonians as well as the rest of the world that a so-called democratic State like France can perfectly well deviate at its convenience from so-called democratic values ​​and principles in order to defend its own interests.

Wishing you a pleasant read and reminding you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.

The APROFED association