The Fall of the French Senate
As a citizen of France, I have never considered running for office — except maybe for the Senate. My country’s upper house of parliament is located at the Luxembourg Palace, a 17th century building right in the middle of the Luxembourg Gardens, the most beautiful park in Paris. The best bookshops and cafés are just at hand on the Saint-Michel and Saint-Germain boulevards. Quite tempting, I must say.
In addition, senators are elected for six years, and lead rather quiet, if dignified, lives. The French Senate is not the U.S. Senate. And not even the German Bundesrat. A minor partner in the legislative process, it may submit amendments. And that’s it. The last word belongs to the so-called lower house: the National Assembly. Or to the executive, which enjoys considerable powers and prerogatives and in fact initiates most legislation in France.
Things were very different in the past. Under the Third Republic, the upper house, elected by local assemblies for nine years, was as important as the lower, the Chambre des Députés (House of Representatives), elected by the whole male citizenry for four years only. Laws had to be passed by both houses in identical wording. Cabinets were answerable to both houses. The Senate could sit as a high court of justice in matters of sedition or high treason.
The logic behind so much power was that France was still unsure about the merits of a republican or even a democratic government. Earlier experiences had not been quite satisfying: both the First and the Second Republics had gone chaotic and been quickly replaced by authoritarian monarchies. The best way to ensure that the Third would last was to keep it as conservative as possible. Hence the Senate, which as an expression of the local powers and consequently of rural France, was deliberately designed to check or dilute many of the hasty policies or reforms put forward by the more urban-based Chambre des Députés.
It worked very well. Or maybe too well. The old Senate’s most famous contribution to the political and social stability of the country was probably its obstinate refusal — in 1922, 1928, 1929, 1931, and 1936 — to enfranchise women, or even to discuss such an issue.
The Third Republic was defeated by Hitler’s Third Reich in 1940, and collapsed. There was once again an authoritarian interlude, under the aegis of the conquerors: Marshall Pétain’s Vichy government. When France was liberated by the Anglo-Americans in 1944, a Fourth Republic was founded upon decidedly democratic principles. Women were finally enfranchised. The Senate was abolished, then reestablished in 1946 as the much diminished Council of the Republic. The lower house, renamed the National Assembly, reigned supreme. Twelve years later, however, the Fourth Republic gave way to the Fifth, Charles de Gaulle’s personal creation: a semi-presidential regime with strong neo-monarchist undertones. Both houses of parliament were weakened. At least the upper house was known again as the Senate.
There was a brief attempt, in 1969, to give it a new role. De Gaulle’s administration had been shattered the previous year by the so-called student revolution, which was in fact more a cultural upheaval than anything else. In a desperate but ill-conceived move, the aging president offered to open up the Senate to all kinds of grassroots movements and professional groups, including trade unions: a proposal that was out of sync with the late-sixties spirit and even reminiscent of the corporatist schemes of Mussolini, Salazar, and Franco. Upon its rejection in a referendum, de Gaulle was wise enough to resign. Ironically, it was Alain Poher, the chairman of the Senate, who succeeded him as an interim head of state until a new president was elected.
Ever since then, nobody has dared to question the Senate’s usefulness or functionality in its present form. However, some change was bound to take place some day, for sheer demographic reasons. Sixty percent of the French still lived in rural areas in 1945; only 22% were left in 2011. Much more relevant, the share of the peasants in the global active population dropped from 40% to 3.3%: most of the residents in contemporary rural areas are in fact engaging in urban professions and living in urbanized settlements. The Senate is thus less and less rooted in traditional France (inasmuch as there is still such a thing), and tends more and more to reflect the mainstream French society. This factor doesn’t necessarily work against the conservative parties, but it deprives them of many unconditionally loyal constituencies.
There was a conservative majority at Luxembourg Palace throughout the Fifth Republic until the very last partial election, which took place on September 25. It’s over now: by a thin margin — 177 seats out of 348 — the Left is in. What does it mean? Not much, one would argue. Neither in constitutional terms, since the Senate plays a marginal role, nor in political terms since these returns were just the mechanical translation of earlier local Left-wing successes.
On the other hand, the fall of the Senate may have considerable symbolic impact on the coming 2012 presidential campaign. It may reinforce a perception of Nicolas Sarkozy, the incumbent president, as a loser, and thus perversely accelerate his defeat next spring. But the opposite might be true as well. Grasp all, lose all: the Left now looks too strong. In addition to the Senate, it controls 60 départements (counties) out of 100, 24 regions out of 27, and 26 of the 38 largest municipalities. If it wins the presidential election as well as the subsequent National Assembly elections (as is usually the case), France will become a de facto one-party country. A dreadful prospect for most French people, including many Socialists or left-of-center sympathizers.
And an incentive to vote for Sarkozy and the Right after all.
“If it wins the presidential election as well as the subsequent National Assembly elections (as is usually the case), France will become a de facto one-party country. A dreadful prospect for most French people, including many Socialists or left-of-center sympathizers.”
I think France will go one of two ways next year. Either it will go totally far left, bringing in a new age of socialism that will really send the country off the edge financially, or Sarkozy will win, but only with the help of the far right. And if that happens, Sarkozy will owe the far right Big Time, and who knows what he’ll have to give them in return. Sarkozy is in a bad spot, but if I had to guess I think the French will go socialist. After all, it’s what they do best.
The same things are happening under Sarkozy as would happen under a more socialist government. A Sarkozy win with the help of the right, far or otherwise, might have some minor salutary effect but such a “dance of scorpions” would have no long-term effect. Sarkozy’s heart would not be in it at all.
Ed l is correct. The defining choice is between Le Pen and the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of Sarkozy and the left, both of whom welcome the extinguishment of France through massive African and Muslim Arab immigration.
The mass of French voters appear to show no fury at this prospect and are still wildly enthusiastic about welfare state politics. Both of these apparently must play out to the bitter end.
Nationalist, salvationist parties in Europe have hitherto been starved of oxygen due to the fingers the voters have kept dug into their windpipes. Perhaps Le Pen’s message will resonate as never before but the likely prospect is more of the same with minuscule gains by the nationalists (which have been seen).
Until there is a sea change in the thinking of the whole native French people, who runs France probably is a matter of no moment on the issues of economic and cultural/racial sanity. The same might be said of the coming U.S. elections. A nation that gave such power to Reid, Pelosi, and the Marxist revolutionary Obama (with a forged birth certificate and who kicked off his campaign for the Illinois senate in the living room of two communist terrorists) is a nation that celebrates cluelessness. As long as people like that are attractive to voters only Solzhenitsyn’s “pitiless crowbar of events” will return the nation to its core principles and the worship of reason (Meditations, IV, 16). No warnings seem sufficient for people hell bent for fiscal incontinence and immigration madness.
John Podhoretz wrote a fascinating book on the administration of Bush 41 called Hell of a Ride. It would be a good title for a book about our coming travails while the inevitable plays out.
Any french voter would have to be mentally ill not to vote for Marine Le Pen. Sarkozy is a phoney and the Socialists would like France to turn into North Africa.
If Sarkozy wins with Marine’s backing, does his debt to the Right mean he’ll deport all the Hungarians?
What problems have Hungarians caused in France?
It was a joke, Sarkozy has Hungarian roots.
Esterhasy, the real traitor in the Dreyfus case was from Hungarian ascendency.
If this thesis is correct, France will join Greece and Spain in a most unpleasant position: a Socialist government having to dismantle the welfare state, taking all the political heat—including the inevitable riots. Same old story: Be careful what you ask for.
In a democratic system with sufficient incompetent parties, which is true for all contemporary democracies, there will be never a one-party country, as the ruling party will most probably frustrate either the swing voters or their traditional supporters and lose their dominant position sooner or later.
Think only of Democrats in the USA after winning Congress and presidency.
It has fallen on the French Senate now. I don’t see how they can keep proceeding as they have. The Germans were summer guests that over stayed their welcome compared to the problems France has now. Good Luck.
Because I am convinced that the fate of France is sealed, because “My house is their house” (Mitterand), inside “Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian” (Chirac), because the situation is moving irreversibly towards the final tumble in 2050 which will see French stock amounting to only half the population of the country (the oldest members), the remainder composed of black Africans, North Africans and Asians of all sorts from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third World, predominantly Islamic, understood to be fundamentalist jihadists, this dance is only the beginning.
“No amount of atomic bombs will be able to dam up the tidal wave of millions of human beings that will one day leave the southernmost and poorest parts of the world, to invade the relatively open spaces of the wealthy northern hemisphere, in search of survival.” (President Boumediene, March 1974.)
“The thousand years are accomplished. And the nations at the four corners of the earth, that are equal in number to the sands of the sea, are going out. They will march to battle on the surface of the earth, they will invest the camp of the saints and the beloved city.”
There are 6 million to 8 million Muslims in France, their birth rate is higher, and more are on the way.
Although Muslims comprise “only” 10% (perhaps slightly higher) of France’s population, they are already over 30% of the children in France, due to their higher birthrates.
Over the next few decades millions more will pour in from the Third World — Arabs, Africans, Asians and Muslims.
France is over. They invited the Muslim invader into their country, and as a result, they have lost their countries.
Baby boomer Europe decided in the 1960s and 1970s it wanted La Dolce Vita, not the hassle of children. It had that sweet life. Now the bill comes due. And the bill is the end of their tribes and countries as we have known them. Old Europe is dying, and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging “against the dying of the light.”
There are 6 million to 8 million Muslims in France, their birth rate is higher, and more are on the way.
Although Muslims comprise “only” 10% (perhaps slightly higher) of France’s population, they are already over 30% of the children in France, due to their higher birthrates.
Over the next few decades millions more will pour in from the Third World — Arabs, Africans, Asians and Muslims.
France is over. They invited the Muslim invader into their country, and as a result, they have lost their countries.
Baby boomer Europe decided in the 1960s and 1970s it wanted La Dolce Vita, not the hassle of children. It had that sweet life. Now the bill comes due. And the bill is the end of their tribes and countries as we have known them. Old Europe is dying, and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging “against the dying of the light.”
France’s suburbs ‘separate communities in a divided nation’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046202/Frances-Islamic-suburbs-separate-communites-divided-nation.html?ITO=1490
Because I am convinced that the fate of France is sealed, because “My house is their house” (Mitterand), inside “Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian” (Chirac), because the situation is moving irreversibly towards the final tumble in 2050 which will see French stock amounting to only half the population of the country (the oldest members), the remainder composed of black Africans, North Africans and Asians of all sorts from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third World, predominantly Islamic, understood to be fundamentalist jihadists, this dance is only the beginning.
“No amount of atomic bombs will be able to dam up the tidal wave of millions of human beings that will one day leave the southernmost and poorest parts of the world, to invade the relatively open spaces of the wealthy northern hemisphere, in search of survival.” (President Boumediene, March 1974.)
“The thousand years are accomplished. And the nations at the four corners of the earth, that are equal in number to the sands of the sea, are going out. They will march to battle on the surface of the earth, they will invest the camp of the saints and the beloved city.”
The article gives an incomplete view of the role of the French Senate by focusing only on the Senate’s influence on national leadership questions. Senators in France play a critical role in their electoral units, bridging organizations and enabling civic initiatives. Senators are reelected according to their success in meeting the needs of local organizations and through their contributions to the economies and to the modernization of their locales.
No American, perhaps not even a Facebook executive is as competent at networking through their communities as French Senators and their staffs. Senators help knit the nation to Paris, a useful activity because otherwise France might be Paris. Even leftist senators work effectively with business, enabling them to open any senior-executive door in Ile-de-France, in EU organizations, and in other countries, for example for American businessmen like me, even in August!
Consider the possibility that the left everywhere excels at networking; are leftist senators winning by showing they can create value for constituents? More broadly, are French electing socialists because socialist French governments have actually been competent enough to create some value — one example: atomic power — and talk a better game?
The competence and good will of our own federal government is so unspeakably degenerate compared to say, France and Sweden, where useful, efficient services are sometimes actually delivered, that many American conservatives might be as surprised as I have been.
“More broadly, are French electing socialists because socialist French governments have actually been competent enough to create some value — one example: atomic power — and talk a better game?”
Socialists do not create value, they steal it when not regulating and subsidizing those entities that still produce profit. Atomic power? You must be passing through these parts.
“The competence and good will of our own federal government is so unspeakably degenerate compared to say, France and Sweden, where useful, efficient services are sometimes actually delivered, that many American conservatives might be as surprised as I have been.”
Those countries are going broke, much like California, and the locals who live there, and pay those extraordinary taxes for those base services that are “sometimes” delivered, have little net income to call their own.
Hi, Buckeye Abroad. Thanks for disagreeing in a civil tone. Not sure we disagree, except on one point. You say, “socialists do not create value.” Well, though I my wife and I are each entrepreneurs and as hostile to socialism as possible, I am saying that our own government has become so harmful and malign (example: failure to approve lifesaving medical devices already proven massively in Europe) that the socialists of Europe are showing more competence and creating more value. In Germany, socialists have created value by lowering taxes. In Sweden, tax returns are public; that creates value by reducing cheating. In Sweden, there is a national identity card and a bank ID; these create value in almost all transactions; no Swede would want to be without these smart cards. The French avoid ship a small fraction of their GDP abroad and run mostly on atomic power; our U.S. officials block intensive use of our own energy resources and have needlessly shipped untold sums to people who do not wish us well, accounting for much of the trade deficit and for some dollar weakness.
So in Europe socialists have been creating value; could our government in the U.S. recite current, comparable examples? In economics, such management changes are an accepted approach to value creation called, total factor productivity; all that’s needed is competence. Come to think of it, maybe the economists could introduce a variant of the standard regression equation for productivity, to be used with the U.S. Government, with a minus in front of total factor productivity.
Yes,Buckeye Abroad, these countries are increasingly insolvent as you say. But surely we have recently accelerated our insolvent ways, with far less to show for it.
Hi Tom.
“Thanks for disagreeing in a civil tone.”
Likewise.
“…I am saying that our own government has become so harmful and malign (example: failure to approve lifesaving medical devices already proven massively in Europe) that the socialists of Europe are showing more competence and creating more value.”
I agree with the first part of your statement, but I fail to see how you can say European socialists show more competenece (eg. stifling regulations, protected industries inhibitiing competion, over taxation, etc…) or how they create value. They don’t. They redistribute, and ration, others peoples incomes and are not transpartent about it. One of the biggest reasons I hear why Euroeans don’t have, or more, kids…”can’t afford them.” The tax base depletes and the borrowing goes up to reinforce the socialist state.
“In Germany, socialists have created value by lowering taxes.”
They lowered corporate taxes, not income taxes. I am an American expat who has lived in germany for a very long time and I can assure you the amount of income taxes, plus all the mandatory fees (eg. health insurance, church tax, unemployment, social security, etc…), will deduct almost half you salary, if your single, before you recieve the net amount. Now inlcuded with the net amount that you pay 19% VAT on all purchases, gas for the car (which you are taxed for owning ), any other source of incomes… even more hefty tax rates.
Oh, atomic power.. the German Bundesrat wants to end all that.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/us-germany-nuclear-idUSTRE74Q2P120110531
Model socialism only works in places like sweden or finnland from my experience. Meaning a small ethnic group who share the same religious and social backgrounds at a national level and are a purely monolethic culture.
“our U.S. officials block intensive use of our own energy resources and have needlessly shipped untold sums to people who do not wish us well, accounting for much of the trade deficit and for some dollar weakness.”
Agreed, but socialism isn’t the answer nor never will be.
“So in Europe socialists have been creating value;”
You failed to demonstrate that.
“In economics, such management changes are an accepted approach to value creation called, total factor productivity; all that’s needed is competence. Come to think of it, maybe the economists could introduce a variant of the standard regression equation for productivity, to be used with the U.S. Government, with a minus in front of total factor productivity.”
For productivity, in a real sense of the word, you need demand and the US govt. needs to stop interfering for that to happen. You want to buy a GM Volt? Why not?
“But surely we have recently accelerated our insolvent ways, with far less to show for it.”
So the US poltical class should loot faster?
Buck, thanks for the comments.
Let’s Go to School on Socialism 2.0:
We American conservatives who oppose socialism would do well to better understand our socialist opponents. I commented here because I don’t think the French author explained why leftists keep winning seats in the French Senate. Having worked with and socialized with a leftist French Senator on various matters, I described above how leftist French senators competently create value for their own voters.
Socialism is My Opponent:
I’m in business; so’s the wife; we don’t want the murderous revolutionary socialism of Ayres and friends; we don’t want the softer governing kind of socialism you live with in Europe. Maybe I should have spelled that out.
U.S. Socialists are the Worst Kind; even Putin is Appalled:
Socialists and non-socialists alike in U.S. governments have failed to create the kinds of value that socialist European governments have created, e.g.: (1) leftist French Senate-level mastery of networking on behalf of all comers; (2) leftist atomic power at work today in France for energy security and balanced trade accounts; (3) leftist tax cuts as now at work in Germany driving exports; (4) leftist tax-reporting transparency as accepted in Sweden to discourage cheats; (5) leftist citizen-friendly transaction resources that are convenient and trusted; and (6) leftist income-friendly energy policy.
Our own governments are replaying hundred-year-old socialist tapes, designed for seizing power and looting, under cover of chaos. European socialism, ever burdensome, has matured in some ways that should embarrass American socialists and even conservatives. A pity that our officials are too ignorant of the new normal in Europe to rise to parity.
Wanted: Examples of U.S. Government Competence:
Help me out here; name something productive our own government has done willingly. Has our Government willingly: Retained the Bush tax cuts? Extended the Bush security protocols? Executed trade treaties?
Productivity Creates Demand; our Government Destroys Demand by Destroying Productivity:
To your useful point: “For productivity, in a real sense of the word, you need demand and the US govt. needs to stop interfering for that to happen.” The equation that I mentioned successfully models productivity, but fails to account for government-destroyed value and needs an update to account for recent years of productivity suppression on steroids — what you call interference. Nevertheless the demand you say is needed grows with productivity because productivity drives prices down and increases real incomes. I’ve done the math here for us.
Bye!
Sorry, Buck; gotta drop the discussion now and finish a deliverable in a few hours, before my profitable capitalist customer in socialist Sweden starts the new work week.
Interesting article! I was unaware of the complexity and flexibility of the French governmental system. Given the influx of Muslims, I can envision some départements becoming “no-go” zones for either European-origin French or Muslims. It brings to mind the situation in Germany where Luther and the Catholic Church divided the country into Protestant and Catholic counties. Perhaps that will reoccur in the context of French reality. After that insight, my vision of the future becomes blurry (its usual state), but that is the fun of living in these days.
#10. Jerry
It brings to mind the situation in Germany where Luther and the Catholic Church divided the country into Protestant and Catholic counties. Perhaps that will reoccur in the context of French reality.
If I remember correctly, the German version took about 30 Years to sort out, and it killed between 1/3 and 1/2 of the population of Germany. Given the stronger organizing principle behind the soon to be Muslim majority, the fact that those of military age in France are mostly Muslim, and the increased lethality of modern weaponry [although Muslims do have a traditional fondness for the blade and up-close-and-personal killing of the helpless]; it will not take 30 years, and there will be no tolerance of neighboring “others” in the future equivalent of a Wesphalian Treaty.
Subotai Bahadur
For the record, let us be clear. You are predicting that French nuclear weapons and their means of delivery will fall into the hands of Muslims by default resulting from demographic changes. May I further suggest that the same thing will happen in Britain – perhaps a bit later. What is your timeline?
Sorry I did not get back to this thread sooner. My guess is that it will be 5 years at the very outside, presuming no economic collapse [which is not exactly a safe assumption, and could happen any moment, literally]. I expect much sooner, and we are entering a period of time when any unforeseen event can move things along right smartly. It is kind of like our US Forest Service, whose PC policies have laid the grounds so that any forest fires we have are guaranteed to be huge and out of control. Don’t know when or where the spark is going to land, but when it does it is going to been horrendous.
If our Jihadist enemies, both in France and elsewhere, are not planning on using part of the French Force De Frappe as the “Sword of Islam”; they are far more stupid than it is safe to depend on an enemy being.
Any such attempt will force the necessity of the rest of the Dar al Harb reacting in some very non-trivial ways as a matter of self-defense. I have studied the problem, and there are physical, technical means available for its solution. The problem is more a matter of psychology and will.
This morning over at INSTAPUNDIT, I ran into this paragraph from Morison’s classic biography of Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea:
That seems scarily on point today throughout Western civilization. Lacking will to act, I suspect that we are going to see Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez’ Three Conjectures come into play.
Subotai Bahadur
Unfortunately, the nuclear annihilation of France by NATO or the United States, albeit under the presumed future Muslim control is a radically different matter subjectively than bombing Muslims or Arabs exclusively. There are so many innocents (in every sense of the word) in Europe that it will look like Gaza “militants” looked to the Israeli air force during Operation Cast Lead. The emotional overtones of destroying what used to be yours is quite different than bombing a place and a people for which you have no affinity. That is why your thesis is so troubling. No one counts a Pyrrhic victory as a real victory!
Nowhere have I implied that it was a good option. Unfortunately, especially as we have deliberately foreclosed any “good” or less harmful options for over a generation; in most fields of life we have boxed ourselves into a corner where our sole options are “really bad” and “horrendous”. One of the dismal hallmarks of Western Civilization is an intertwined belief that a) there are really not bad people who really will do really bad things no matter how much we try to compromise with them, b) that somewhere that there always is a simple solution that will yield a win-win situation, and c) that any official agencies that contemplate any situation not covered by the above are the real problem.
A Jihadist seizure of operational control of all or part of the Force De Frappe and its supporting infrastructure would be an intolerable, and existentially threatening, event for Western Civilization. The Wahabists will have a nuclear strike force with worldwide reach. I offer a link to the Three Conjectures I referenced above, noting that there is no deterrent theory or competent authority with which to negotiate a MAD standoff. If they have the weapons, they will be used; requiring efforts to defend against them.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
The only alternatives are 1) a nuclear strike to destroy the Ummah in its entirety [Doable, requiring precision delivery of 5 short range missiles, 39 medium range missiles all with one warhead each. [44], 12 cruise missiles, and 12 gravity bombs. It requires taking advantage of ALL the effects of nuclear detonations.]; inflicting hundreds of millions of deaths, or 2) Massive retaliation against the putative national entity and population that theoretically is responsible for the weapons used against us. Note that any Jihadist entity in control of and which uses the Force De Frappe against the Infidel would consider the massive casualties involved as a feature and not a bug; and would not be deterred by a threat of such.
The physical, technical means I referred to are not as extensive as one would think. 72 specific targets; 8 to be attacked with nuclear weapons, the rest with a combination of conventional weapons. There would be massive civilian casualties, but it would be orders of magnitude less than alternative 2) above.
The alternative is the certainty that the Force De Frappe will be used against us, and that the massive civilian casualties will be ours, in addition to the French equivalent. There are no good options remaining to us in that case.
As I have noted in other venues, I am not a “nice” person. But I am a realist. And I find the comparison with the Thirty Years War writ large to be on point.
Subotai Bahadur
my best friend’s mom makes $77 an hour on the computer. She has been out of job for 9 months but last month her check was $7487 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here LazyCash4.com
“Jean Jacques Rousseau Institute, a [..] think tank …”
That’s a contradiction in terms.
@tom in ca
“I described above how leftist French senators competently create value for their own voters.”
It’s called pork in the US, but a leftist French senator wouldn’t see that.
“U.S. Socialists are the Worst Kind”
Agreed. They are a bigger threat for the US than islamic terrorism. Your points 1-6 are completley debateable and open to interprutation. In the end, the citizen who pays the taxes must judge if they are getting adequate, and sustainable, services for their tax dollars.
“Wanted: Examples of U.S. Government Competence:”
Good luck with that. The only time they budge is when they know they will be forced out of office. Power is their motivation, not helping the public.