Lecornu's announcement was key to obtaining an agreement from France's once-mighty Socialist Party, which has 69 members and affiliated members in the 577-member Assembly, that it would not support a potential vote of no-confidence. How will the Socialists position themselves as the government's finance bill comes up for debate? Is a parliamentary logic of consensus gaining ground? An interview with political scientist and French constitutional expert Benjamin Morel.

The Socialist Party (PS) has agreed not to back a no-confidence vote. Is Lecornu's government guaranteed to remain in power?

Benjamin Morel: It takes 289 MPs not to vote in favour of the motion of no-confidence for the government to remain in power. At this stage, a motion of no-confidence is unlikely due to the number of political groups that have given instructions not to vote in favour of it. However, some groups, notably LR (Les Républicains, a right-wing party) and PS, are prone to dissent, and there are unknowns on the side of the non-attached members of LIOT (Libertés, indépendants, Outre-mer et territoires, a centrist group). Will there be more than 20 dissidents, which would allow the government to be censured? It's not impossible, but it is unlikely.

Is a dissolution of parliament, which would be effected by President Emmanuel Macron, also unlikely?

B.M.: If the Lecornu government does not immediately lose a confidence vote, dissolution is probably out of the question. Indeed, if dissolution were to take place in November or early December, there would no longer be any MPs in the National Assembly to vote on the budget or pass a special law allowing revenue to be collected: this would then be a major institutional problem. If dissolution were to occur later – in the spring – it would take place at the same time as municipal elections, which PS and LR mayors would oppose because they could suffer from a“nationalisation” of local contests. Dissolution after the municipal elections? We would be less than a year away from the presidential election, and dissolution would be a considerable hindrance to Macron's successor. For all these reasons, it is quite likely that dissolution will be ruled out.

If Lecornu's government does not immediately lose a confidence vote, the next step will be a vote on the budget. What are the different scenarios for the budget's adoption? What position will the PS take?

B.M.: Lecornu has announced that he will not invoke Article 49.3 (the constitutional rule that allows the government to pass a law without a vote) for the budget: this means that the budget can only be adopted after a positive vote by a majority of MPs, including the Socialist Party's. However, we can expect the Senate, which has a right-wing majority, to push for a more austere budget before it goes to a joint committee and back to the Assembly. For the budget to be adopted, the Socialists would therefore have to vote in favour of a text that they do not really agree with, under pressure from the rest of the left, just a few months before the municipal elections. Lecornu's general policy speech was considered a triumph for Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure and the PS. This is true, but the PS is now in a very complicated political situation.

The second scenario is that of a rejected budget and a government resorting to special laws. The problem is that these laws do not allow for all public investments to be made, which would have real economic consequences. In this case, a budget would have to be voted on at the beginning of 2026 with an identical political configuration (in the Assembly) and municipal elections approaching, which will further exacerbate the situation.

The final scenario is that after 70 days, Article 47 of the Constitution, noting that parliament has not taken a decision, allows the government to execute the budget by decree. There is uncertainty regarding Article 47 and the decrees, as they have never been used. Legal experts think that it is the last budget adopted that is submitted by decree – so, in principle, it would probably be the Senate's budget, probably a very tough one – with the possible exclusion of funds earmarked for the suspension of pension reform.

Ultimately, the Socialists could face a real strategic dilemma: adopt a budget they will find difficult to support, bear the cost of special laws, or accept the implementation by decree of a budget drafted by the Senate's right wing. All of this will likely lead to further crises.

How can we understand the change of direction by the Lecornu government, which is moving from an alliance with LR to an agreement with the PS?

B.M.: The PS became vital because the Rassemblement National (the far-right National Rally, or RN) entered into a logic where it wanted a dissolution in the hope of obtaining an absolute majority in the Assembly. As a result, the PS became the only force that allowed Lecornu to remain in place. The PS was able to take full advantage of this situation. Another factor in the PS's favour is recent polls showing that, in the event of a dissolution, the Socialists would do well while the centre bloc would be left in tatters. This fundamentally changes the balance of power. To avoid losing a confidence vote and then facing dissolution, the government had to offer a big concession: the suspension of the pension reform.

How should we interpret this agreement between the central bloc and the PS? Is the parliamentary logic of consensus finally gaining ground?

B.M.: This political development is not based on parliamentary logic but on a balance of power. In a parliamentary system, the president does not pull a prime minister out of a hat, saying 'it's him and no one else'. He looks within parliament for someone capable of forming a majority. Once this majority has been found, a programme is drawn up and finally a government is appointed. The logic of consensus would have required a comprehensive agreement, a joint government programme between LR and PS. This is not the case at all.

Macron is not really asking Lecornu to find a majority; he is asking him to try not to lose a confidence vote, even though this PM is supported by only a minority of MPs – just under 100, from (central bloc parties) Renaissance and MoDem – which is unheard of in any parliamentary democracy. The result is that the balance of power is extraordinarily fragile and crises are recurrent. However, these obstacles will have to be overcome, and we will have to get used to relative majorities, because the polls do not necessarily suggest that a new majority would emerge in the event of a dissolution of parliament or even a new presidential election.

Interview conducted by David Bornstein.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

This article was originally published in French

MENAFN16102025000199003603ID1110204693