ID: 100048067
EUR 302a – Take home paper 2
Comparison between France and Britain
When looking at countries within the European Union, one can easily distinguish many
similarities as well as differences. These have been brought about by historical events which
have had their impact on each specific country. In this paper I will compare France and Britain.
My bases for the comparison will be focused firstly on the respective political institutions and
secondly on the electoral system. Furthermore I will try to depict how the latter influences the
party systems, the powers of parliament and government formation.
The Fifth Republic of France was established in 1958. France has changed 13 different
constitutions since the Revolution of 1789. During the time of the creation of the Fifth Republic,
the prevailing idea was that France needed to regain its status as a major international actor. De
Gaulle, the first elected President, helped establish a system with strong political leadership in
which the President gained the attributes of a king in power. Thus France has a semi-presidential
system in which the people directly elect the President but there is also a Prime Minister who can
be dismissed by Parliament. Similarly, the British Parliament also enjoys the right of dismissing
the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, unlike France, British political system does not have a precise
moment in history of foundation. While in the late 1950’s the crisis in French politics cause a redefinition of the constitution, such an event is not present in British politics. It entered the 1945’s
as a new political formation, consisting of a parliamentary democracy as well as a constitutional
monarchy.
The French constitution serves as basis for the French system. In Britain there is a lack of
a written constitution. The system is rather based on a number of fundamental pieces of
legislation which have taken constitutional values over time. Nevertheless, the British
constitution is not comprised of a single document. Unlike France, there has been no moment of
profound political crises to force a rewrite of the constitution. While the events of the 1950’s
cause fundamental changes in the political French system leading to a redefinition of the role and
purpose of its political institutions, Britain lacks such a moment. Moreover, it lacks a formal
constitution. Rather, the British system is based on a collection of pieces of legislation which
have taken constitutional value over time. One example is the Bill of Rights which has taken
such a value in the British system.
The British system is based on the Westminster Model with London at the center of its
politics. The reference point of the British traditional “Westminster” model is ‘parliamentary
sovereignty’. In the France however, the political system create the expectation of presidential
leadership.
While Britain’s Westminster model in build on a few defining features such as the
absolute power of the Parliament, while still maintaining a monarch. France’s system is one of
semi-presidentialism. While the first represent a model of a unitary state build upon the
presupposition of absolute parliamentary sovereignty, the latter produces two main political
actors. In the French system, the people directly elect the president but there is also a Prime
minister. The similarity between the French and the British system is that in both cases, the
Parliament has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. One can conclude that the French
Council of Ministers is equivalent to the British Cabinet.
The semi-presidentialism of the French produces a head of State (the president) as well as
a head of government (the prime minister). While most of the time both actors come from the
same political families there can be cases to the contrary which can result to be problematic and
decrease the power of the president. Such cases as referred to as co habitation. The president has
greater responsibility for high matters of the state while the Prime minister would appear to be
responsible for matters related to domestic policy. Contrary to the French system, there is no
clear separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branches in the British
system.
Besides the differences in the political system, France and Britain differ in terms of
parliamentary powers. This is as a result of the electoral system. Thus, the British people express
their will of representation only when the Parliament is dissolved. After this occurs, the majority
in Parliament forms a government in the form of a Cabinet that makes the necessary policies in
accordance to the civil service. Although new parties might move into power, the civil service
which is subordinate to the executive does not change. Since the executive is also subordinate to
Parliament, one can conclude that the Parliament has absolute authority within the British
system, Hence, the term ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. Contrary to Britain, the French parliament
is rather weak. It has a restricted field of action as well as weak budgetary power. The Parliament
can be circumvented by a referendum. Article 49.3 further weakens its powers. This clause in the
article gives the government the right to adopt a piece of legislation without going through
voting. According to Article 49.3, the French parliament can not oppose without overthrowing
the government. In this case there would be a need of new elections. Furthermore, “The Nuclear
Weapon” is the right of the President to dismiss the National Assembly (lower house of
Parliament) and call for new elections. The President has the power to dismiss right away the
representatives who have been chosen by the people. Thus, the Parliament has a very weak role
in French politics. In the British system, no one can annul a piece of legislation because it has
been approved by parliament and the parliament is sovereign. However, it is only binding as long
as the current Parliament serves. The Cabinet Government is monitored by the Parliament.
The electoral system has an impact not only on Parliament power as mentioned above,
but also on political parties and government formation. On the one hand, France has a two-block
multi party system based on political competition between the left and the right. On the other
hand, Britain posses a two-party system. The electoral rules determine the structure, organization
and strategies of political parties.
Thus, in France, the electoral system of a two ballot majority- plurality encourages multi
– party competition. This counterbalances alliance- building logic. Conversely, the first –past –
the- poll electoral system of Britain supports the creation of a two- party- system., mainly
between the Labour Party and The Conservative Party. Likewise the effects of the differing
electoral systems are reflected in the government creation. While in France, the system creates a
strong majoritarian logic as well as coalitions, the situation is not the same in Britain. The
government is led by party majority of seats with a discrepancy between the number of votes and
the number of seats.
Through a comparison between two different countries within the European Union, one
can conclude that the political institutions as well as the electoral system cause diverse
systematic outcomes. This illustrates the dynamics in Europe as a whole and helps us understand
how these distinctive countries function individually and as a whole.