Article 49.3: How does an “instigated” vote of no confidence work?

“This is a shame for democracy. Parliament will be trampled and humiliated to the end.” Like Fabien Roussel, leader of the French Communist Party (PCF), the use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution has been criticized. This Thursday, the government of Elizabeth Bourne, unsure of winning a majority in the National Assembly after a long legislative marathon, decided to use this procedural tool. The goal of the executive branch is to minimize the risk that the controversial pension reform text will be rejected by parliamentarians.

Introduced into the Constitution of 4 October 1958, paragraph 3 of Article 49 is one of the mechanisms designed to limit the parliamentary instability that was observed during the Third Republic.

According to this provision, “The Prime Minister may, after discussion by the Council of Ministers, hold the government accountable to the National Assembly in voting on a bill.”. In this case, “This draft is considered adopted unless a vote of no confidence is passed”. Thus, this rule introduces the so-called “provoked” vote of no confidence, as opposed to the “spontaneous” vote of Article 49.2.

Therefore, it is not the original text that is put to the vote of the deputies, but the future of the government, which stands at its origins. Indeed, if the vote of no confidence is rejected, the law is passed without any other form of voting. On the contrary, if the majority of the elected members of the semi-cycle (currently 287) voted for it, the government is forced to resign. At the same time, the President of the Republic must elect a new one. To try to resolve the political crisis, he may also opt to dissolve the National Assembly, leading to early legislative elections.

The application of Article 49.3 is specifically formalized by the Constitution, and even more so after the 2008 reform. From now on, it can only be applied to “funding or welfare bill”. “The Prime Minister may, in addition, use this procedure for another bill or a bill for a session”, lays out the text. Moreover, for its operation, the permission of the Council of Ministers is required, although the latter, as a rule, is a pure formality.

As for the vote of no confidence, strictly speaking, it should be “filed within twenty-four hours” official actuation 49.3. It shall then be put to the vote, at the latest, “forty-eight hours after it was served”. This newsletter is public.

Note that this provision can only be used before the National Assembly, not the Senate, as the upper house does not have the power to overthrow the government.

Article 49.3 of the Constitution was often used under the Fifth Republic, especially during terms of office with a small majority in the National Assembly. Counting Thursday, it was 100 times, including 28 for the government of Michel Rocard (1988-1991) alone. In most cases (out of 55 texts), at least one vote of no confidence was introduced. In total, under the Fifth Republic, 67 references to “provoked” censorship were recorded. None of them was passed, even if some of them did not pass by less than ten votes.

The practice thus reveals both the frequent use and low usefulness of the censure vote. In most cases, it is primarily a matter of action and disagreement with the majority.

Thanks to the functioning of the institutions, this procedure is not very risky for the government. At the political level, it is very difficult for deputies of the majority, even a very critical one, to vote for a vote of no confidence in the opposition. Even in the case of a relative majority, as it is at present, it is difficult for some elected officials – in this case Republicans – to join this movement, given that pension reform was on their agenda during the last election. Despite everything, this way of working, which ultimately consists of bypassing parliament, often represents an admission of impotence on the part of the executive, unable to win a clear majority in a half-cycle.

With regard to the current procedure, two votes of no confidence were submitted. The first, at the initiative of the National Association (RN), has no chance of being adopted: the left refuses to vote for a text coming from the extreme right.

The second, on the other hand, was filed by about fifteen elected representatives of the group Libertés, Indépendants, Outre-mer et Territoires (Liot). The fact that this independent political entity does not have a pronounced political coloration is likely to lead to a federation of more deputies from one end of the semi-cycle to the other. Apparently, Les Républicains (LR) should play the role of arbitrator. To get the fatal 287 votes, about thirty elected officials had to cast their votes. An unlikely hypothesis, party leaders have expressed dislike for references to censorship. The threat of a possible dissolution of the National Assembly could also tip the balance, as some MPs are not guaranteed to keep their seats in the event of new legislative elections.