Barely appointed to Matignon when his position is called into question. A few hours after the announcement of the arrival of Gabriel Attal at the head of government, several voices were raised on the left to demand that the new Prime Minister request a vote of confidence from parliamentarians.
“If there is no vote of confidence, we will table a motion of censure, it is Parliament which must validate the name of the Prime Minister and this is the case in all democracies,” said Manon Aubry. , MEP La France Insoumise at the microphone of Sud Radio on January 9, while on BFMTV, the coordinator of France Insoumise Manuel Bompard presented this procedure as a mandatory step for “all parliamentary democracies in the world”. In France, however, the new tenant of Matignon is not systematically obliged to take part in such an exercise. Would our country then be a French exception regarding the validation of the composition of the government by Parliament?
“The vote of confidence is a principle inherent to the parliamentary system,” explains Bertrand-Léo Combrade, professor of public law at the University of Poitiers, where “in principle, the government is the emanation of the first chamber” elected by suffrage direct universal. In these types of regimes, mainly represented among our European neighbors, this vote consists of deputies granting or not their confidence to the government in place. In Spain, for example, it is the king who proposes a candidate for the presidency of the government, after consulting the representatives of the political parties having obtained parliamentary representation. The deputies vote for the nomination of the candidate presented: if he receives an absolute majority, he is invested; but if he receives more unfavorable votes, his candidacy is rejected. If no investiture occurs within two months, the king must pronounce the dissolution of the Congress of Deputies and call new elections.
Also read: The Assembly’s short glossary: all the terms you need to know to follow parliamentary life
Among our German neighbors, the Bundestag, the lower house of Parliament, has a “constructive vote of no confidence” by electing another chancellor with an absolute majority. In the United Kingdom, even if the British case is more ambiguous, the prime minister, designated by his party and by the king, can be expelled from his government by a vote of no confidence held by his party. In principle in Italy, the government, made up of the president of the council of ministers and the ministers, before entering into the exercise of their functions, “must have the confidence of the two chambers” which make up the Italian Parliament within ten days following its formation.
In our country, the vote of confidence, traditionally presented as a first step towards parliamentarians, consists of “the Prime Minister, after deliberation of the Council of Ministers”, to engage “before the National Assembly the responsibility of the government on its program or possibly on a declaration of general policy”, according to paragraph 1 of article 49 of the 1958 Constitution. If it does not obtain an absolute majority of votes, the government must resign. The majority must then re-form a team, which will also be submitted to a vote by Parliament.
Nevertheless, “the Constitution is ambiguous and it is more the practice than the letter of the Constitution which makes it optional to request confidence,” underlines Benjamin Morel, lecturer in public law at the University of Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas. The main party concerned can decide not to seek the confidence of the government, under a Constitution interpreted in a “very presidentialist” manner, continues the expert. “The guardian of the Constitution is the President of the Republic, who also appointed the Prime Minister. The president, who can bring down the minister, is therefore both judge and party.” Deprived of an absolute majority, Élisabeth Borne, Gabriel Attal’s predecessor, had not risked the exercise in 2022. We observe a similar operation in Norway and Sweden, “where the government can also do without the formal confidence of the first chamber,” adds Bertrand-Léo Combrade, “but these are parliamentary monarchies.”
The Assembly, however, has another means of pressure to bring down the government, through the motion of censure, admissible only if it obtains an absolute majority, that is to say the vote of at least 289 of the 577 deputies. “The majority required is different from that of the vote of confidence,” explains Benjamin Morel. On a vote of confidence, a government falls if it does not have a majority of votes cast. This is easier to achieve than a motion of censure, where the votes are calculated on the total number of deputies and only the votes in favor of the motion are counted: the majority is more complicated to achieve for the opponents who must put themselves forward. agreement on a single motion where the vote of confidence just forces them to each say no to the government. “It is more difficult to bring down a government through a motion,” summarizes the constitutionalist, “and this explains the attitude of prime ministers. They can choose not to seek a vote of confidence, taking the side of a potential motion of censure, which is more difficult to enforce.”
In summary, the case of France is indeed an exception among European parliamentary democracies, but this is due to the way in which the government is appointed. Holding a vote of confidence is provided for in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, but requesting the National Assembly is neither a constitutional nor a legal obligation, unlike its European neighbors.
