Suchergebnisse

Since the birth of the fifth republic it has been a commonplace to conclude that the parliament stemming from the constitution of the 4th october 1958 has gone into an irresistible decline, and that the end of the parliamentary sovereignty as well as the technical and political domestication of the parliament have contributed to the weakening of the parliamentary institution. However, one should ponder over the validity of this too quickly made diagnosis. Actually, one is led to much more qualified conclusions when one no longer compares the situation of the parliament of the fifth republic with the one of the former republics - an irrelevant comparison juridically and politically speaking - and prefers to contrast it with the role and the powers possessed by the parliament within the context of an ideal parliamentary system. Indeed, while remaining the organ giving birth to the govemment, the parliament is also instrumentalised by the latter. However, this instrumentalisation is intentional, and the parliament may anyway decide to put an end to its collaboration with the trustworthy committee it has chosen for itself. In the same way, if the parliamentary majority is closely framed and supervised thanks to the mechanisms provided for in the constitution of the 4th october 1958, it also acts as a powerful checking organ of the govemmental action. In fact more often than not. The rights and the powers of the parliament of the fifth republic are not questioned by the juridical mechanism of the constitution but rather by the behaviour of the members of the institution. Yet, a closer analysis foregrounds the fact that since the advent of the majority fact, the members of parliament have been either hardly conscious of their power or reluctant to use it. As a conclusion, although the decline of the parliament rests on some realities, yet for the most part it is a mere myth. ; Depuis la naissance de la ve republique, c'est un lieu commun que de conclure a l'irresistible declin que connaitrait le parlement issu de la ...

Since the birth of the fifth republic it has been a commonplace to conclude that the parliament stemming from the constitution of the 4th october 1958 has gone into an irresistible decline, and that the end of the parliamentary sovereignty as well as the technical and political domestication of the parliament have contributed to the weakening of the parliamentary institution. However, one should ponder over the validity of this too quickly made diagnosis. Actually, one is led to much more qualified conclusions when one no longer compares the situation of the parliament of the fifth republic with the one of the former republics - an irrelevant comparison juridically and politically speaking - and prefers to contrast it with the role and the powers possessed by the parliament within the context of an ideal parliamentary system. Indeed, while remaining the organ giving birth to the govemment, the parliament is also instrumentalised by the latter. However, this instrumentalisation is intentional, and the parliament may anyway decide to put an end to its collaboration with the trustworthy committee it has chosen for itself. In the same way, if the parliamentary majority is closely framed and supervised thanks to the mechanisms provided for in the constitution of the 4th october 1958, it also acts as a powerful checking organ of the govemmental action. In fact more often than not. The rights and the powers of the parliament of the fifth republic are not questioned by the juridical mechanism of the constitution but rather by the behaviour of the members of the institution. Yet, a closer analysis foregrounds the fact that since the advent of the majority fact, the members of parliament have been either hardly conscious of their power or reluctant to use it. As a conclusion, although the decline of the parliament rests on some realities, yet for the most part it is a mere myth. ; Depuis la naissance de la ve republique, c'est un lieu commun que de conclure a l'irresistible declin que connaitrait le parlement issu de la constitution du 4 octobre 1958. La fin de la souverainete parlementaire et la domestication a la fois technique et politique du parlement contribueraient a l'abaissement de l'institution parlementaire. Cependant, il convenait de s'interroger sur la realite de ce diagnostic trop promptement realise. Or, en ne comparant plus la situation du parlement de la ve republique avec celle qu'il avait sous les republiques precedentes, comparaison juridiquement et politiquement peu pertinente, mais avec le role et les pouvoirs dont jouit le parlement dans le cadre d'un regime parlementaire ideal, on aboutit a des conclusions beaucoup plus nuancees. En effet, tout en demeurant l'organe donnant naissance au gouvernement, le parlement est aussi instrumentalise par ce dernier. Toutefois, cette instrumentalisation est volontaire et le parlement peut toujours decider de mettre fin a sa collaboration avec ce cornue de confiance qu'il s'est choisi. De meme, si la majorite parlementaire est etroitement encadree et controlee grace aux mecanismes prevus par la constitution du 4 octobre 1958, elle constitue egalement un puissant organe de controle de l'action gouvernementale. En realite, le plus souvent, ce ne sont pas les mecanismes juridiques de la constitution qui concourent a une remise en cause des droits et pouvoirs du parlement de la ve republique, mais bien plus le comportement des acteurs politiques. Or, il apparait a l'analyse que les parlementaires, surtout depuis l'apparition du fait majoritaire, ont peu conscience de leur pouvoir ou qu'ils repugnent a l'utiliser. En conclusion, si le declin du parlement repose sur quelques realites, il constitue, en grande partie, un simple mythe.