When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

France's President Can Bypass Parliament On Syria, But He Shouldn't

President Hollande has the power to strike militarily without parliamentary consent. But democratic and political necessities require it.

France's National Assembly in Paris
France's National Assembly in Paris

-Editorial-

PARIS – It seems like a basic necessity of democracy: The French Parliament should not only debate, but also vote on any potential French participation in an intervention against Syria.

Members of the opposition from the right, center, as well as Green and Communist party members on the left: all are demanding such a vote, invoking the examples of both the United Kingdom and the United States. A few days ago, Prime Minister David Cameron had to accept the House of Commons rejection of a British commitment to participating in a strike agains Syria. As for President Barack Obama, he decided to submit his initiative to Congress.

Can we do less in Paris?

Let’s be clear: Even if it may be politically necessary for the head of state to call on Parliament to vote, it cannot become an automatic right. That is for one simple reason: The French Constitution excludes such a parliamentary prerogative, except in the case of a full-fledged “declaration of war.”

The recent 2008 constitutional review made the rule clearer in the case of a military intervention in a foreign country, stating that “The government shall inform the Parliament of its decision to have the armed forces intervene abroad, at the latest three days after the beginning of the intervention. It shall detail the objectives of said intervention. This information may give rise to a debate, which shall not be followed by a vote.”

It could hardly be clearer: the duty of informing and explaining, yes; the right to vote, no. The vote is only mandatory for the authorization to continue an intervention beyond four months. Everyone may consider this rule to be archaic and rather undemocratic. It is not a sufficient reason to change the country’s Basic Law at the whim of circumstances and moods.

Look to 1991

Still, nothing prevents the President and the government from consulting Parliament and asking its members to vote. President François Mitterrand and his Prime Minister Michel Rocard did so in 1991, before the French participation in the First Gulf War. Prime Minister Lionel Jospin refused to do it in 2001, when France joined the coalition against the Afghan Taliban regime.

In Syria’s case, today, François Hollande would do well to follow the precedent of 1991. For three reasons. First, after the example just set by the American President, he could consider a Parliament vote a useful pedagogical exercise for the nation, and would give more power to his decision to “punish” the Syrian regime.

Then, the head of state cannot invoke a matter of urgency, unlike France's recent intervention in Mali, which required, in order to be a success, an immediate reaction from the head of the armed forces. Obama’s decision to consult Congress gives Hollande time to organize not only Wednesday's debate, but also a second debate — and a vote — soon after.

It is also worth noting that before the 2004 Iraq War, Hollande, who was then the head of the Socialist party, had asked for a Parliament vote on a United Nations resolution which was to act as the basis for an American-led intervention.

Finally, if he had not explicitly mentioned a new review of the Constitution, the then presidential candidate Hollande had nonetheless promised, on March 11, 2012, “an in-depth dialogue with Parliament” in the case of overseas operations.

Why not engage in such a dialogue? It is now or never.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Future

Injecting Feminism Into Science Is A Good Thing — For Science

Feminists have generated a set of tools to make science less biased and more robust. Why don’t more scientists use it?

As objective as any man

Anto Magzan/ZUMA
Rachel E. Gross

-Essay-

In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a mystery played out across news headlines: Men, it seemed, were dying of infection at twice the rate of women. To explain this alarming disparity, researchers looked to innate biological differences between the sexes — for instance, protective levels of sex hormones, or distinct male-female immune responses. Some even went so far as to test the possibility of treating infected men with estrogen injections.

This focus on biological sex differences turned out to be woefully inadequate, as a group of Harvard-affiliated researchers pointed out earlier this year. By analyzing more than a year of sex-disaggregated COVID-19 data, they showed that the gender gap was more fully explained by social factors like mask-wearing and distancing behaviors (less common among men) and testing rates (higher among pregnant women and health workers, who were largely female).

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ