The 6 solutions proposed by governance AI for France

The APROFED association is contacting you again this week following the governance problem currently facing France, which is reminiscent of a similar situation experienced by French Polynesia in the early 2010s.

The association has therefore once again called on AI to provide us with information on potential solutions to this problem.

Below is his response:

When a parliament becomes unable to perform its functions , this can cause an institutional blockage , threatening the political, economic or social stability of the country. Several systems or mechanisms have been put in place throughout history or in different countries to respond to this type of crisis.

Here are some possible policy solutions , with historical or contemporary examples :

1. Strengthening of executive power (semi-presidentialism or strong presidentialism)

Principle: give the head of state or government more power to act without being blocked by parliament.

Examples:

• • France (Fifth Republic) : In 1958, faced with the parliamentary instability of the Fourth Republic, de Gaulle adopted a new Constitution strengthening executive power. The president had numerous powers (Article 49.3, dissolution of the Assembly, etc.).

• • USA : The president is independent of Congress, which prevents the executive branch from being completely blocked even in the event of a conflict with the legislature.

Advantage: allows for governing during periods of deadlock.
Disadvantage: risk of authoritarianism if countervailing powers are weakened.

Article 16 of the Constitution allows the President of the French Republic to exceptionally assume full powers in times of crisis, disregarding the separation of powers. He can thus take measures normally falling within the competence of Parliament or exercise regulatory power without requesting the government (see What power does Article 16 of the Constitution give to the President of the Republic? | Constitutional Council ). Although temporary, moving towards this scenario would be perceived as an authoritarian drift and would risk accentuating the difficulties rather than resolving them.

2. Unicameral and streamlined parliament

Principle: simplify the functioning of parliament (abolition of bicameralism, reduction of obstruction powers, accelerated legislative procedures).

Examples:

• • Sweden, Norway, Denmark : effective parliamentary systems with a unicameral parliament.

• • Spain (post-Franco transition) : establishment of rules governing the motion of censure (“constructive” motion).

Advantage: greater efficiency in decision-making.
Disadvantage: possible weakening of democratic debate if overly centralized.

If no majority is currently possible within the National Assembly, which is divided into 3 blocs with almost equal numbers of deputies, divided between the center, the far left and the far right, it is not the same at the level of the Senate where, out of the 348 senators currently in office, a large majority would be possible between the elected representatives of the right and the center, totaling a little over 200 senators. Unfortunately, no provision in the Constitution allows, in the event of a blockage in one of the parliamentary chambers, to exchange the role of the chambers or to switch to a unicameral system where a majority would be possible. Article 16 of the Constitution seen previously also does not allow the President to initiate a revision of the said Constitution during the period in which he would have the powers of parliament.

3. Temporary technocratic government

Principle: entrust the government to experts independent of the parties, generally to manage a crisis or a transition.

Examples:

• • Italy : several technocratic governments (e.g. Mario Monti in 2011) to break parliamentary deadlocks or political crises.

• • Greece (2008-2012): economic crisis leading to national unity or technocratic governments.

Advantage: more pragmatic, less politicized decisions.
Disadvantage: lack of democratic legitimacy if it lasts too long.

While this Italian solution seems interesting, it would not resolve the crisis in the French case, given that only the Italian government, namely the ministers, had been replaced and not the parliamentarians. The latter were able to define a majority in order to vote confidence in a government of experts and endorse the laws and reforms proposed by the latter, which is not currently the case in France. The option of a government of national unity, although not a legal concept but a political practice already applied in France at the Liberation in the 1940s, conceivable in a situation of parliamentary deadlock, would involve sharing responsibility between the three blocs and thus distributing the fifteen ministries within the government, for example by the Prime Minister between these blocs, bringing representatives of the extreme right and left into key positions, something to which the President of the Republic is currently opposed. Such a scenario would, however, require the confidence of the National Assembly to avoid any censure, which is not a given. French political culture is more marked by confrontation than compromise. Parties often prefer to remain in opposition to prepare for change, rather than governing together. Political actors must therefore agree to share power instead of opposing each other. A national unity government can also be seen as ideological dilution and disappoint the electorate. Alternatives aimed at implementing a minority government , without an absolute majority, negotiating on a case-by-case basis with different groups (as in Spain or Denmark), or a classic coalition with several parties signing a government agreement, without this being a union of all parties, have unfortunately not worked so far.

4. Referendum or direct democracy

Principle: bypass parliament by appealing directly to the people.

Examples:

• • Switzerland : numerous tools of direct democracy (referendum, popular initiatives).

• • France : de Gaulle used the referendum to resolve deadlocks (e.g. 1962 for the election of the president by universal suffrage).

Advantage: strong legitimacy, helps to unblock a situation.
Disadvantage: populism, simplification of complex issues.

Although the association is in favor of implementing direct democracy, calling for a referendum to ratify each piece of legislation would be technically almost impossible given the number of regulatory texts produced by Parliament each year and would ultimately certainly result in a demand from the population to end the system of representatives, as the latter are not doing the job for which they were appointed.

5. Deep constitutional reform or Constituent Assembly

Principle: start again on new institutional bases to escape a serious blockage.

Examples:

• • Tunisia (2011) : revolution, dissolution of the old parliament, drafting of a new Constitution by a Constituent Assembly.

• • Iceland (2009) : constitutional reform initiated after the financial crisis (partially implemented).

• • France (1958) : change of regime with the Fifth Republic.

Advantage: deep and structural response.
Disadvantage: long, uncertain process, risky in times of tension.

The association appears to be opting for this solution in order to begin work until the date of the next presidential elections scheduled for 2027 aimed at implementing the foundations of a 6th federal-type republic not only in France but for the entire EU. Still able to meet within the framework of Article 16, the members of parliament would thus have the task of amending this work of transformation initiated by the president and desired by nearly 71% of French people in a recent poll. Faced with a situation of regime blockage, it is perhaps time to opt for a complete change of regime. If the parliamentary, presidential, semi-presidential regimes tried during the first 5 republics only ultimately resulted in a blockage, it is therefore appropriate for the 6th and next republic to move towards something new, namely a federal regime .

6. Dissolution and new elections

Principle: call for universal suffrage to renew parliament and resolve the deadlock.

Examples:

• • Common practice in parliamentary regimes (United Kingdom, France, Germany).

• • Can be combined with a change in voting method to promote stability (e.g.: move to majority voting, or proportional voting with thresholds).

Advantage: respect for popular sovereignty.
Disadvantage: does not always resolve blockages if the balance of power remains unchanged.

As the AI ​​indicates, dissolution doesn’t always resolve deadlocks. Power relations can remain unchanged. This is unfortunately what happened during the dissolution requested by the president in 2024. Would a new dissolution change things? We doubt it.

In summary:

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