I thought that elections were won and lost on the economy and I thought that governments always experience a mid-term slump. So, why has the incumbent government in France just won another by election in the middle of a recession?

On Sunday, at the second round of the election, the UMP candidate, former Judo star, David Douillet, beat the socialist party candidate by 52.1% to 47.9%. The election was held in a wealthy Parisian suburb in the district of Yvelines 12. The seat is usually a safe right-wing seat. So, in one sense there is no surprise. However, if ever an opposition party should be winning a by election, even if it then loses the seat at the next general election, then this is surely the time.

The first round score was as follows:

David Douillet (UMP) : 44,20 %
Frédérik Bernard (PS) : 21,87 %
Alain Lipietz (Greens) : 14,82 %
Richard Bertrand (Modem – centrist) : 7,72 %
François Delapierre (Left party) : 4,87 %
Christophe Le Hot (Extreme Right) : 3,14 %
Richard Gautry (SE) : 2,00 %
Bernard Huet (Other) : 1,24 %

So, this time, it looks as if the Greens and Left Party voters did turn out and support the socialist candidate. However, with only a slight increase in the very low turnout, the UMP candidate was able to win.

If you are the PM in France and the president’s closest adviser says that your departure from office is not on the agenda, then you start to worry.

This is what Claude Guéant, the General Secretary of the Elysée (presidency), said in an interview with Le Figaro yesterday. The context is the key thing. Formally, there is nothing in the interview apart from the following exchange:

A. Will François Fillon (the PM) be leaving office?
A. As far as the President is concerned, it’s clear, François Fillon is not leaving. The President believes that they are collaborating well. This issue is definitely not on the agenda.

Q. When he does leave, will he want a European position, President of the European Council or High Representative for Foreign Affairs?
A. That’s absurd. The nominations will be made in November. Contacts are already under way between heads of state and government. For this reason there is no European perspective for François Fillon in the short term.

What is there for the PM to worry about? Well, there is the usual worry. He is the PM! And the PM, in France, is a revolving-door position. He has been in office for two-and-a-half years, so he has had a good innings in French terms. In addition, his popularity ratings are not very high (see previous post) and dissatisfaction with the government seems to be hitting it where it hurts – in the ballot box! (See below). Also, he was recently the source of vitriolic criticism by a minister, Christian Blanc, who complained to the president that the PM had changed at the last minute various decisions that had previously been agreed. The letter was leaked and the PM probably came across as the victim. Nonetheless, it points to the fact that, within the government, and within the broader majority, there is probably little affection for the PM even if most people are still loyal at this point.

So, the fact that the president’s closest adviser was even asked about the PM’s future and that the subsequent declaration of loyalty then made the front page of the country’s two main national newspapers is what gives Fillon something to worry about.

As noted above, the government was recently given a scare at the ballot box. At the end of last month there was a by election in the constituency of Rambouillet (Yvelines). This is a strong UMP (government) area. Anyway, at the second ballot, with a turnout of just over 22%, the UMP candidate won by a meagre 5 votes, or 50.01% to 49.99%. While government supporters clearly stayed at home, there is no doubt that UMP deputies will be worrying about their prospects for re-election and they might think that a change of PM would help.

The other story of the by election was that the main opposition Socialist party candidate was eliminated at the first ballot. Instead, the Green candidate came second and contested the second round. This is another sign of the total disarray in which the socialists find themselves at present. The full result of the by election is available here.

This is first of a series of posts on government popularity. This is the most recent SOFRES poll for France. It records confidence in the president and PM. The red line records lack of confidence.

Well, I did predict a reshuffle in France after the European election. I just expected the PM to be one of those who would be a victim of it. Not so. François Fillon remains as PM at the head of a government with quite a few new faces and some changes of portfolio.

The appointment of Frédéric Mitterrand, nephew of the late president, as Minister of Culture is the one that has made the most headlines. Mitterrand openly supported right-wing candidates at the last two presidential elections. So, this is not so much a case of trying to poach votes from the socialists. It is more a sign that Sarkozy is trying to portray his government as being one that is open to civil society.

Politically, more important is the appointment of Michel Mercier, who was formerly a member of the centre-right MoDem party and whose leader, François Bayrou, is a certain presidential candidate in 2012. With Mercier’s appointment, Sarkozy is definitely trying to nibble away at Bayrou’s support. This makes good political sense. Arguably, Sarkozy is more likely to lose the 2012 election to Bayrou rather than anyone else. As things stand, even if the socialists got through to the second round, they would be roundly defeated. However, if Bayrou won through, then the anti-Sarkozy vote (including the socialists) would all support Bayrou and this might pose a real threat to the president.

The UMP’s somewhat better-than-expected showing at the EP election is probably the reason for Fillon being kept on. However, for me, reading the coverage of the reshuffle in the French newspapers, the most notable thing was the almost total absence of any reference to Fillon. The reshuffle was a purely presidential affair. In one sense, this is not surprising or without precedent in France, but the absence of any seeming intervention by Fillon was noticeable.

The EP election was held in France on Sunday.

The turnout was 39.8%, a new low. The results from the EP were as follows (2004 in brackets)

Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) – 28%, 30 seats (16.6%, 17)
Socialist party (PS) – 16.8%, 14 seats (28.9%, 31)
Europe Ecology – 16.2%, 14 seats (7.4%, 6)
MoDem (centrist) – 8.5%, 6 seats (12%, 11)
National Front (FN) – 6.5%, 3 seats (9.8%, 7)
Left Front (communists and others) – 6.3%, 4 seats (5.9%, 3)
New Anticapitalist Party (NPA, extreme-left) – 4.8%, 0 seats (2.6% with LO, 0)
Libertas – 4.8%, 1 seat (6.8% as MPF and 2.5% as CPNT, 3)
Workers’ Struggle (LO, extreme-left) – 1.2%, 0 seats (2.6% with former NPA, 0)

The incumbent administration is a single-party UMP majority government with Nicolas Sarkozy from the UMP as president. Immediately following the 2007 presidential election, the legislative elections returned the UMP with a first-round vote of 39.5%. So, there has been a considerable slippage in support for the UMP in the context of France’s economic problems. However, the Socialists continue their decline. Indeed, the fragmentation of the left-wing vote is somewhat reminiscent of the first round of the 2002 presidential election. EP elections in France have often thrown up strange results. So, there is nothing particularly exceptional about these results in one sense. However, they are likely to lead to some sort of soul searching on the left and it can only increase the crisis in the Socialists. Interestingly, MoDem did not do as well as they might have hoped. Their leader, François Bayrou, is hoping that disarray on the left will allow him to slip through to the second ballot of the 2012 presidential election where he might pick up enough anti-Sarkozy votes to be elected president. However, this result does not bode well for such a strategy.

An article on the 2004 EP election in France can be found here.

It looks as if presidential/prime ministerial relations in France may be on the mend – faute de mieux?

Towards the middle of 2008 it was widely reported that relations between President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Fillon were barely cordial. In January 2008 Fillon confided in a radio interview that it had taken some time for he and the president to find “the right way” of working together. Then, at the end of April Fillon gave a newspaper interview in which he was reported as saying that “it was normal” that there were moments of tension between the president and prime minister. According to L’Express, the president took umbrage at this remark. He summoned Fillon mid-way through a parliamentary question-and-answer session and gave him a dressing down at the Elysée Palace. There was speculation that, while the president would not sack the prime minister during France’s presidency of the EU, dismissal would follow soon afterwards

Now, though, with the French presidency just at an end, it looks as if the relationship is on the mend. In his New Year message, the president went out of his way to mention his prime minister – something that previous presidents have omitted to do. Le Figaro has taken this a sign that Sarkozy is intending to stick with Fillon for some while longer.

Fillon is popular with the ruling party, the UMP, deputies. Also, given the difficult economic situation and that Sarkozy wants to be re-elected in 2012, it might be in Sarkozy’s interests for Fillon to take any unpopular measures that may be necessary and then for a change to be made. This way the president could avoid taking the blame for the policies and hope to keep his popularity level as high as possible.

The French Senate is indirectly elected. There are now 343 seats. Senators (for the last time – changes roll out in 2011) are elected for 9 years with one-third being elected every 3 years (in 2001 it will be for 6 years with one-half being elected every 3 years). The electorate is based on elected representatives in each department. There is a slightly different method of election depending on the size of the department and the number of Senators to be returned. In short, it’s a pretty complicated system, but, there’s a bottom line.

Given the electoral college comprises all elected representatives, it includes mayors of the very smallest rural communities. In general, these people tend to be on the right. So, the Senate has had a right-wing majority for the history of the Fifth Republic.

In the 2008 election, this situation did not change. The right lost 11 seats and the left (the Socialists, actually, not the Communists) gained 22 seats. However, the right still has a decent overall majority (178/339 seats).

The Congress at Versailles passed the constitutional amendments that I referred to in the previous post. The vote was tight. In fact, the bill was passed by just one vote more than the necessary three-fifths majority. Jack Lang, a well-known former minister and leading socialist, voted for the reform. Given the vote broke down along largely partisan lines (especially on the left), he has been blamed within the socialist camp for helping to pass a reform that, they say, will reinforce President Sarkozy’s vision of the presidency.

It is certainly true that President Sarkozy was personally associated with the reform. However, Sarkozy is on record as saying he favours a system in which the president can govern. This can be interpreted as saying that he favours a US-style presidential system. This is system that his prime minister, François Fillon, publicly supported last year. It is also supported by former prime minister Edouard Balladur, who was the author of the report on which the constitutional amendments were based (though it avoided the issue of presidentialism, parliamentarism or semi-presidentialism).

In total, the reforms that were eventually passed help to provide some extra powers for parliament, as well as some other checks and balances. With the exception of the president’s ability to speak before the legislature now, the president’s powers are not increased. In theory, therefore, Sarkozy should now find it more difficult to govern as he wishes. All the same, he proposed the bill as part of a more general desire on his part to see a ‘modernisation’ of French institutions. This desire for modernisation raises the prospect of future reforms, especially if Sarkozy is re-elected for a second term in 2012.

The French legislature – National Assembly and Senate – has just agreed a bill that is designed to reform a considerable number of articles of the 1958 constitution. The bill will go to a vote in a special Constitutional Congress on 27 July. As things stand, it seems to be touch and go as to whether the reforms will finally be adopted. The text is available on the National Assembly website here.

The bill will not alter France’s semi-presidential status. However, it includes a number of changes that affect the president and the legislature. In general terms, the reforms increase the role of the legislature at the expense of the government. However, the opposition socialists and some members of the centrists believe that the reforms do not go far enough. A three-fifths majority is required in the Congress and the bill is not guaranteed to have that level of support.

In terms of the changes, the government’s use of the infamous Article 49-3 will be restricted. Parliament has more say over presidential appointments. In general, parliament has more control over the legislative agenda and discussion of bills.

In addition, the president may now address parliament. However, the president’s use of emergency powers has been weakened somewhat. Also, crucially, the president is now term-limited. There is a two-term maximum (so 10 years).

There are also other key aspects of the reform that have little to do with France’s executive-legislative relations, but that do affect the system and the development of Europe more broadly. So, there are clauses relating to the possibility of laws being struck down as unconstitutional retrospectively and that include a degree of citizen involvement in the process. Also, the stipulation that there must be a referendum as regards the entry of any new member to the EU has been amended, in effect making it easier for EU enlargement to occur.