Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Sheilbh]

Also, if we had the Westminster system, would Queen Brynda I still have actual power, or be just like King Charles?

Yeah I'm not sure about the Westminster system as a model. I think it's adaptable enough.

Although obvs there are many parliamentary models with presidents. I personally am a big fan of Ireland's system - but also admire Germany's.  I've read a few things and would love to read something in proper detail about the Italian constitution - because Italian lawyers describe it (as they obviously would) as the "most elegant" constitution in the world But also it's explicitly anti-fascist (and the symbolic elements are under attack from Meloni), but also, one of the only (possibly the only) country in Europe that, like the US, has two equal legislative chambers. I'd love to properly understand how it works.

I'm not so sure about the prestige of the head of state being the problem - though I take Valmy's point. I think the bigger benefits of a parliamentary system is that it has a clear, formal, constitutional role for opposition which I actually think is really important. But also that it normally, in one way or other, requires a government to be able to pass legislation and, at the very least, pass a budget every year - I think the ability generally for Congress to just absolute abdicate their responsibilities (and with it see the executive grow in power) is a problem.

[crazy canuck]

No, if you had a Parliamentary system you would not be stuck with a President for four years, you would not have government shutdowns, etc etc etc.

[Tonitrus]

Just a PM for five years?

Sure, in theory MAGA backbenchers could bring down the PM sooner than that...but does any of us really believe that Mirror-universe PM Trump would not have total control over his parliamentary party?

And we wouldn't have shutdowns, but that is because the opposition would be truly and completely powerless.

How would a Trump/MAGA in the UK/Canada, lacking in any ethics or restraint, not be able to wreck the corresponding democratic system any differently than is happening now?

[crazy canuck]

Just a PM for five years?

Sure, in theory MAGA backbenchers could bring down the PM sooner than that...but does any of us really believe that Mirror-universe PM Trump would not have total control over his parliamentary party?

And we wouldn't have shutdowns, but that is because the opposition would be truly and completely powerless.

How would a Trump/MAGA in the UK/Canada, lacking in any ethics or restraint, not be able to wreck the corresponding democratic system any differently than is happening now?

You're looking at this from a very American perspective. There are no terms here.  A leader can be replaced at any time, and here's the really important part that differentiates our two systems – the new leader becomes the Prime Minister without an election.

Why is that important? In one word, ambition.  Part of Trump's appeal is that he is a good tool for the ambitious.  Now imagine those ambitious mega supporters who could become Prime Minister if only they took out a very, very weak leader.

That is the main strength of our parliamentary system.  People don't have to hold their nose for the whole term of leader like Trump.  You need only look at what just happened in Canada to see our system at work.


And that's not even getting into all the other fundamental structural weaknesses of the American system of governance.  For example, in a parliamentary system if a budget doesn't get passed, there is immediately a new election to elect a government that will have the confidence of Parliament to pass a budget.  The government doesn't shut down in the interim. Existing spending keeps happening.

[Tonitrus]

Why is that important? In one word, ambition.  Part of Trump's appeal is that he is a good tool for the ambitious.  Now imagine those ambitious mega supporters who could become Prime Minister if only they took out a very, very weak leader.

So a Trump could be more quickly supplanted by arguably more dangerous/competent elements in the party (Vance, etc.) more easily?  Not sure that is helping your case. 

I suppose the question might be if that structure inherently creates a more moderating element across the board.  I am not sure it does.

[Grey Fox]

A possibility but every part of the system would be different not only the Trump - Vance leadership dynamic.

[crazy canuck]

A possibility but every part of the system would be different not only the Trump - Vance leadership dynamic.

Yes, that is the point. And I would go further to say that someone like Vance is only possible in the American system where a VP needs to be selected.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think there's a perfect system or that any system is necessarily capable of surviving a crisis of politics or political culture (that's partly why I personally in my own country back the political constitution).

But I think fundamentally as soon as we start acting socially and collectively there is a risk. My own view is there's no legal magic that can de-risk it. Political culture, political bodies or the tools through which we act socially are the only mitigations/prophylactics to that risk - but the capacity for huge damage is there.

[Tonitrus]

A possibility but every part of the system would be different not only the Trump - Vance leadership dynamic.

Yes, that is the point. And I would go further to say that someone like Vance is only possible in the American system where a VP needs to be selected.

Disagree.  Vance was in the Congress...not at all unrealistic, especially with the same financial backing*, that he could be a deputy PM or high up in the leadership/cabinet in a theoretical U.S. Parliament.

*political financing is arguably the biggest factor in the differences in our systems, perhaps more so than the structures themselves.