Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
France today political idelogy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: France today political idelogy
Generally speaking, the French political system is special in two ways. First, It is neither a parliamentary system like the British one, where the executive emerges from Parliament, nor a system of separation of powers like the American one, where the President must take account of Congress. The French Fifth Republic is a hybrid system characterized by a Presidency that is oversized in the absence of adequate counterweights. Second, France also differs from most major modern democracies in using two-round single-winner voting rather than one-round (United States, United Kingdom) or proportional representation (continental Europe), which encourages a large number of parties (in the first round) and two major electoral coalitions (in the second), left and right. However, there have been many changes to the French sys tem since the foundation of the Fifth Republic: institutions and politics have continually evolved to achieve their present shape.
The constitution of the Fifth Republic has retained many traditional features of France's governmental structure while significantly enhancing the powers of the presidency in a mixed presidential-parliamentary system. The president, originally chosen by an electoral college but now directly elected in accordance with a 1962 constitutional amendment, holds powers expanded not only by the terms of the constitution itself but also by President de Gaulle's broad interpretation of executive prerogative. In addition to having the power to dissolve the National Assembly with the advice (but not necessarily the concurrence) of the premier, the president may hold national referenda on some issues and is granted full legislative and executive powers in times of emergency. A partial check on th...
... middle of paper ...
...and conflicts with police. Moreover, the growing Muslim community in France, numbering 5–10 million according to various estimates, continued to face major social barriers to integration, including widespread discrimination in housing and employment. By November 8 the riots had spread to some 300 communities, prompting Prime Minister de Villepin to declare a state of emergency. By mid-November the “popular revolt” (to quote a police intelligence agency report) had significantly diminished in intensity, although the state of emergency was not lifted until January 4, 2006. More than 250 schools and 200 other public buildings had been burned or attacked and 10, 000 vehicles destroyed. Arrests totaled 4, 800.
As a permanent member of The UN Security Council and one of the founding countries of European Union, France has very complex multilateral relationships.
The American Revolutionary system served as a model, exemplifying the potential for great change and consolidation. The United States Constitution also provided a template for the French National Assembly. Montesquieu’s proposal of the separation of powers, as well as democratic conventions with representatives of the French people provided protection for the people against their government, securing “the greatest freedom and security for a state” (Duiker and Spielvogel 463). According to Article XV, people possessed the right to hold government officials accountable for their actions, developing a moral incentive as well as a foundational right for a more democratic society (National Assembly). France’s preparation for their independence showed a strong desire for equality and representation that mirrored that of the United
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country.
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)
This greatly impacts people’s opinions of the government. The three different kinds of political cultures are Moral, Individualistic, and Traditional (Mitchell, Unit 3). A moral outlook on government focuses on the collective’s needs and desires. Government is seen as a positive force. The Individualistic approach views that government should only be where it is explicitly needed and values the role of the individual. The Traditional approach focuses on the government preserving the status quo. For Proportional representation (Mitchell, Unit 4) the seats of the legislative body are determined when, while casting votes, people select the party that they most identify with and the proportion of votes each party receives determines the number of seats that each parties obtains in the legislative body. Germany uses a proportional representation system in the lower house of their legislature (Carroll et al.). In Single Member District Plurality (Mitchell, Unit 4), a nation is divided into districts with the representative of the district determined by the person with the plurality of votes. The United States uses this system. The political culture will affect the type of system used or the opinions of the current system since many people are ruled by governments created before they existed. For a traditional population,
In the 1950s, French insecurity feelings forced the state to strengthen its military and presumed Germany as their potential enemy. The state decided not to join the European Defence Community (EDC); where Britain and United States excluded, to stay away from its former archenemy. In other hand, the members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); particularly the hegemons US and Britain provided guarantees as the security providers to European in against potential German aggression. The guarantee triggered the French National Assembly to...
Linz writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for. Linz adds that parliamentary elections are more prone to give representations to a number of parties. Presidential election process leaves little room for consensus building and coalition
France first became an independent nation during the French Revolution. This point in time was when the monarchy that had been around for thousands of years was demolished and was replaced by a Republic government. There were other moments of monarchy in the early history of French statehood, but they were brief. Some of these moments of monarchism include the reigns of Napoléon Bonaparte and King Louis-Philippe. When Napoléon fell at Waterloo, monarchism was reestablished by Louis-Philippe. At this point in time, they were still moving toward democratization, but they were no...
When comparing both voting systems established in France and Canada, the system in France made their people desire for a change more than the voting system in Canada. The voting system for France was established in a way that it would be unfair
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are being debated around the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a President is elected directly by the
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
... voted into the new republic. “France was a republic, but one now in the hands of an assembly dominated by conservatives, many of whom were monarchists”7.
De Gaulle's foreign policy was possibly one of his most controversial legacies. He returned to power in 1958 with the determination to elevate France to a prominent international role. De Gaulle’s ultimate goal was to re-establish France’s standing as a first rate power that in the words of one historian, exemplified “independence and grandeur.” In his war memoirs, de Gaulle presented ‘une certain idée de la France’, it was his belief that France had a great destiny to fulfil: ‘All my life, I have thought of France in a certain way … France is not really herself unless in the front rank … Only vast enterprises are capable of counterbalancing the ferments of dispersal which are inherent in her people … In short, to my mind, France cannot be France without greatness’. This vision was the foundation of his foreign and defence policies.
The quote “The blood of the people has flowed as in July; but this time this noble people shall not be deceived”, is almost a perfect rebuke to von Metternich’s assessment that the French Revolution was pointless as here. The people have held their rulers accountable for their actions and made sure to not give an opening for demagogues likes Robespierre. In addition, as if to add insult to injury to Metternich, the words “The provisional government wishes to establish a republic, --subject, however, to ratification, by the people, who shall be immediately.” is everything that Metternich disdained. The French people didn’t want to wait another century to gain the benefit of political power or when “people were wise enough”, they wanted their rights immediately. Therefore, the French people believed that establishing a Republic would be the best way to achieve that goal. In addition to a Republic style government being the culmination of everything Metternich disdained, a Republic has no absolute monarchy that can do as it likes and the government has to serve the people first instead of someone who lucked out on being born into the right family. Also, republics often tend to be secular, which would end the Catholic/Protestant Church’s political power, and essentially put the last nail in the coffin on divine right being the way
This is composed by the freedom of the citizens that decide to be guided by several laws created by themselves. Facing the sovereigns who concentrate all the power in their hand, this power should be shares between different levels. In this context raise a new movement called “the despotism”, one of the main impeller was Montesquieu. He defends a new political system formed by three powers: legislative, responsible for making laws, which resides in the parliament; executive, responsible for enforce the laws, which resides in the government; and the judiciary, who has to mediate in the conflicts among the citizens, which resides in the courts and the judges. To guarantee the respect for the rights and freedoms, the states have to acquire a constitution, the supreme law or “law of laws” to limit the power of the governors.