Senators start pushing toward a Federal French Republic, while the Assemblèe moves forward towards a budget by voting through the revenue segment of the PLFSS
The Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation. Our Federation is quite different to the USA federation which seems very divisive (I did live & work in NYC schools for two years so experienced so of the federation effects).
We also have few states (6)/Territories (2) in the federation despite not being about 25% smaller than the USA. I also lived in Brazil which is also a federation with 26 states and that seemed to work well.
Neither Australia nor Brazil seem as conflicted about their Federations unlike the USA. I think may be an historical artefact of how forced or otherwise each Federation was at its founding.
Canada maybe a relevant model of Federation to consider. Interesting situation there at the moment with Maple MAGA successionists (lusting after trumpusm) in Alberta…
France is such a wonderful diverse country within a relatively small geographical region with historically diverse independent/exclusive peoples/tribes who, I understand, didn’t take too kindly to being lumped together.
Coercing Départments into a Federation may backfire. However, bringing all Départments on board in an inclusive manner may be time consuming but essential to the founding of a well functioning Federation. Inclusion needs ongoing nurturing too to keep the Federation strong and healthy. More autonomy including decentralised governance and administration may be a boon for cutting notorious French red tape of interminable administrivia???
Ultimately I think a French Federation maybe an efficacious way forward.
I have not very strong opinions on federalism. If you really need it, can be very useful, while France is the canonical cohesive European nation, so probably it is not necessary there.
But compared with the enourmous risk and disfunction of the Presidential system, it is a side show, and side shows are unforgivable at this critical moment.
Oh my God! Are they debating about French institutions, and Presidentialism is not in the agenda (better in the menú)?
This is specially bad, because now France has real multipartidism, and this is catastrophically inconsistent with a Presidentialist system.
The country with the maximum amount of IQ on SciencePo, and you are building a regionalism problem out of the Blue, while the presidential crown is left untouched, waiting for Sauron.
I find fascinating the massive gap between constitutional reforms and political theory. Incredible amateurism.
Interesting. I see parallels with the issues currently being experienced in the USA and its quasi monarchal presidentialism which is most likely an artefact of French quasi post monarchical influence at the time the USA was formed post civil war???
Presidentialism was reasonable: the framers copied the English system with an elective king. They believed in Montesquieu tripartite separation of powers.
The Parlamentarían cabinet system was mainly a fortunate accident: the powers of the king declined in practical terms, and the English Parlament absorbed then in the XIX century, proving Montesquieu wrong. In the XVIII century, the framers did not have this historic experience.
The Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation. Our Federation is quite different to the USA federation which seems very divisive (I did live & work in NYC schools for two years so experienced so of the federation effects).
We also have few states (6)/Territories (2) in the federation despite not being about 25% smaller than the USA. I also lived in Brazil which is also a federation with 26 states and that seemed to work well.
Neither Australia nor Brazil seem as conflicted about their Federations unlike the USA. I think may be an historical artefact of how forced or otherwise each Federation was at its founding.
Canada maybe a relevant model of Federation to consider. Interesting situation there at the moment with Maple MAGA successionists (lusting after trumpusm) in Alberta…
France is such a wonderful diverse country within a relatively small geographical region with historically diverse independent/exclusive peoples/tribes who, I understand, didn’t take too kindly to being lumped together.
Coercing Départments into a Federation may backfire. However, bringing all Départments on board in an inclusive manner may be time consuming but essential to the founding of a well functioning Federation. Inclusion needs ongoing nurturing too to keep the Federation strong and healthy. More autonomy including decentralised governance and administration may be a boon for cutting notorious French red tape of interminable administrivia???
Ultimately I think a French Federation maybe an efficacious way forward.
I have not very strong opinions on federalism. If you really need it, can be very useful, while France is the canonical cohesive European nation, so probably it is not necessary there.
But compared with the enourmous risk and disfunction of the Presidential system, it is a side show, and side shows are unforgivable at this critical moment.
Side shows are distractions we cannot afford right now.
Oh my God! Are they debating about French institutions, and Presidentialism is not in the agenda (better in the menú)?
This is specially bad, because now France has real multipartidism, and this is catastrophically inconsistent with a Presidentialist system.
The country with the maximum amount of IQ on SciencePo, and you are building a regionalism problem out of the Blue, while the presidential crown is left untouched, waiting for Sauron.
I find fascinating the massive gap between constitutional reforms and political theory. Incredible amateurism.
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that history. Makes sense given the respective contexts.
Interesting. I see parallels with the issues currently being experienced in the USA and its quasi monarchal presidentialism which is most likely an artefact of French quasi post monarchical influence at the time the USA was formed post civil war???
Presidentialism was reasonable: the framers copied the English system with an elective king. They believed in Montesquieu tripartite separation of powers.
The Parlamentarían cabinet system was mainly a fortunate accident: the powers of the king declined in practical terms, and the English Parlament absorbed then in the XIX century, proving Montesquieu wrong. In the XVIII century, the framers did not have this historic experience.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uW77FSphM6yiMZTGg/why-not-parliamentarianism-book-by-tiago-ribeiro-dos-santos