12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
The Fourth Republic in France, which at the present fateful moment is in the early days of its uncertain career, is definitely enough established to ensure that it will forever be listed among the several régimes that have prevailed in France since the Revolution. So also, the constitution of the Fourth Republic, commonly referred to as the constitution of September 28, 1946, this being the date of its adoption by the constituent assembly that formulated it, will demand a place on the proverbially long list of constitutions of France, no matter on what basis a count may be made. This constitution was ratified by the voters on October 13, 1946.
The year 1946, it will be remembered, saw the formulation of an earlier constitution in France by an earlier constituent assembly. This constitution, once drafted, succeeded in being passed by the assembly, the First National Constituent Assembly; but the closeness of the vote (309 to 249) was merely one indication of the difficulty it encountered in securing approval. The date of the adoption was April 19, 1946. The constitution was rejected at the polls on May 5, being the only constitution ever to be disapproved by the French voters.
1 By comparison, the Girondin constitution of 1793, it may be recalled, failed even of passage in the Convention; whereas the Montagnard constitution (constitution of June 24, 1793), though passed in the Convention by acclamation and overwhelmingly ratified by the voters, was never put into operation.
2 It is regularly referred to as the constitution of April 15, 1946.
3 It subsequently became the act of November 2, 1945. A convenient English translation of the text may be found in Mallory, W. H., Political Handbook of the World, 20th Year (New York, 1947), pp. 63–64Google Scholar. A careful study of the act is made by Salomon, Robert in “Le Gouvernement constitutionnel institué par la loi du 2 novembre 1945,” Revue Politique et Parlementaire, No. 554, Mar. 10, 1946Google Scholar.
4 Though the contrast between the short act and the two long documents is doubtless less great than that between the régime under which the Constituent Assembly of 1789 operated and the régime established by the constitution of September 3, 1791, the difference seems somewhat greater than that between the régime that was evolved in 1871—75 and the régime set up by the constitution of the Third Republic.
5 Because of the prevailing political situation, the S.F.I.O. draft is of especial interest. The French text of the several draft constitutions, preceded by the French text of the constitution of April 15, 1946, are published in convenient form in Secrétariat d'État à la Présidence du Conseil et à l'Information, Notes Documentaires et Études, No. 209 (Série textes et documents—XXVIII), 3 août 1946, “Les Projets constitutionals français.” An English translation of the constitution of April 15, 1946, was printed in the New York Times, Apr. 23. So far as the present constitution is concerned, a convenient copy of the French text, together with extracts from declarations concerning it by party leaders, was published in France in a single folio by the National Press Association, and is readily available. An English translation was printed in the New York Times, Oct. 1. A somewhat better translation has been issued, as has also the French text, by the French Press and Information Service (501 Madison Avenue, New York 22).
6 Brief but interesting comment on the matter is made by Géraud, André (Pertinax) in “The New French Constitution,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 3, Apr. 1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 The unfavorable majority in respect of the first constitution was approximately a million and a half. The percentages against and for were approximately 53 and 47. The favorable majority in respect of the second constitution was approximately a million. The approximate percentages were the reverse of those in May.
8 This would again seem to be connected with the irrational attitude toward the constitution of 1875, which in reality incorporated the only basic principles acceptable to the French people. Cf., in this respect, D. M. P., , “French Parties and the Constitution,” The World Today, Vol. 2, No. 10 (New Series), Oct., 1946Google Scholar.
9 The French daily press, of course, offers the best documentation in these respects. On the whole, Le Monde seems the best single paper through which to follow developments. However, the several organs of the leading parties are, taken together, an invaluable source. French, English, and American magazines and reviews offer certain helpful material. Especial reference may be made to two essays in English: “The Launching of the Fourth French Republic,” by Micaud, Charles A., in The Journal of Politics, Vol. 8, No. 3, Aug., 1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Political Change in France and Italy,” by Einaudi, Mario, in this Review, Vol. 40, No. 5, Oct., 1946Google Scholar.
10 Pertinax stresses (loc. cit.) the fear that the Left felt of “presidential government.” In this respect, the Left would seem to reflect the general attitude of the people. Closely interconnected is the fact that the Left, in spite of its somewhat extreme emphasis, defends the parliamentary system as such. Thus, when in the Second National Constituent Assembly a proposal was made to adopt a system like the American, based on the separation of legislature and executive, both Socialist and Communist leaders intervened to declare the parliamentary régime indispensable. Journal Officiel, Sept. 6, 1946, p. 3551Google Scholar.
11 The 249 members of the assembly who voted against acceptance of the constitution were distributed as follows: 144 M.R.P.; 22 Résistance dém. et socialiste; 36 Républicains de la Liberté; 22 Radicaux et rad. soc; 8 Groupe paysan; 15 Républicains ind.; 2 (Giraudoux, Marin) no group.
12 At the time of its adoption, it was disapproved by 106 (composed primarily of Radicals and of elements of the Right, including the supporters of General de Gaulle) out of 546 taking part in the vote. Cf. J. O., Sept. 29, 1946, pp. 4259–4260.
13 The present constitution asserts (Art. 48) not only that the ministers shall be responsible to one house, but also that “they shall not be responsible” to the other.
14 For an interesting speech in this respect from the Communist side by M. Pajon during debate in the Second National Constituent Assembly and for a telling intervention by M. Herriot, cf. J. O., Sept. 12, 1946, pp. 3648, 3650.
15 Sovereignty is twice (Arts. 43, 47) asserted to rest with the “people”; and final voice in the matter of amendment (Art. 123) is given to the voters.
16 He might, of course, have invoked the example of the great Radical, Clemenceau.
17 For adoption by the Second National Constituent Assembly of the special statute required to determine the organization of the Council, see J. O., Oct. 3, 1946, p. 4399.
18 The name is changed from Council to Assembly. For adoption by the Second National Constituent Assembly of the special statute required to determine the structure and composition of the Assembly, see J. O., Oct. 3, 1946, pp. 4391–4393. Title VIII (De l'Union française), containing Arts. 60–82, is much the longest title of the present constitution. This is doubtless a reflection of French concern for the imperial problem. Special students of the subject find the improvement in this respect the principal mark of superiority of the present constitution over the earlier.
19 Loc. cit.
20 Const. April 15, Art 78; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 47.
21 Const. April 15, Art. 98; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 33. However, certain new provisions of the present constitution explicitly associate the prime minister and cabinet with the direction of military affairs.
22 Const. April 15, Art. 102; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 36. However, in the present constitution the decree-making authority is not made explicit as in the first constitution.
23 Const. April 15, Art. 62; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 14.
24 Const. April 15, Art. 78; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 47. There are a few exceptions, stipulated in specific provisions.
25 Const. April 15, Art. 107; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 42.
26 Const. April 15, Art. 103; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 38.
27 Const. April 15, Arts. 81, 82; Const. Sept. 28, Arts. 49, 50.
28 The constitution of April 15 would have required a delay of two days.
29 Const. April 15, Art. 80; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 48.
30 Such an assertion is based largely on the assumption that the majority in the National Assembly will consist of a few large well-disciplined parties. This, in turn, is connected with the much discussed prevailing electoral law and the variant of proportional representation established by it.
31 Const. April 15, Arts. 83, 84; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 51.
32 In the event of dissolution, it is provided (Art. 52) that current business shall be carried on by the cabinet, with the interesting and important exceptions that the President of the National Assembly shall serve as prime minister and that he shall, with the approval of the other officers of the National Assembly, appoint a new minister of the interior.
33 Cf., in this respect, Jacomet, Robert, “L'Assemblée constituante et le budget,” Rev. Pol. et Parl., No. 555, Apr. 10, 1946Google Scholar.
34 Const. April 15, Art. 69; Const. Sept. 28, Art. 17.
35 The respective numbers are 134 and 106. Inasmuch as the first constitution numbers the provisions in the declaration of rights, the second constitution actually contains the greater number of articles.
36 Opponents of the constitution of April 15, 1946, interpreted its rejection as in part due to its failure to go as far as the Declaration of 1789 in recognizing the rights of private property.
37 An earlier General Reporter, M. de Menthon, a member of the M.R.P. had withdrawn in March in the face of Socialist-Communist solidarity.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.