In France, the right to dissolve a chamber of parliament—i.e., prematurely terminate its term to trigger an election—has been vested in the Head of State or, in exceptional cases, the Government or even one of the chambers. Dissolutions have occurred under various regimes since 1802, including the First Empire, the Restoration, the July Monarchy and the Third, Fourth and Fifth Republics.
First introduced in the Constitution of the Year X, 1802, for the benefit of the Conservative Senate, dissolution in the truly parliamentary sense in France originated during the Restoration in Article 50 of the Charter of 1814. At first, the use of dissolution was fairly in line with parliamentary theory, before eventually becoming an authoritarian tool under Charles X. Under the July Monarchy, Article 42 of the Charter of 1830 again provided for dissolution, but this time, a genuine system of government accountability was introduced. Two procedures balanced each other out—motions of no confidence versus dissolution—enabling France to experienced its first authentic parliamentary system, where the Government became the real point of contact between the two fundamental bodies: the Monarch and the elected Chamber.
Outside the parliamentary tradition, the authoritarian regime of the Second Empire gave the Emperor the right to dissolve the Legislature.
The Constitutional Acts of 1875 took up the Orleanist mechanism of dissolution, but adapted it. However, the crisis of May 16, 1877 made the procedure tedious to the Republicans, and the tool was abandoned for the rest of the Third Republic. This created great instability in the Chamber of Deputies to develop without sanction, resulting in government instability that worsened with each decade.
In 1946, the Constituent Assembly, informed by France's recent history, retained the right of dissolution but made it automatic in the event of the chamber's instability—rather than a discretionary prerogative of the executive. The constitutional practice of the Fourth Republic showed the limits of the right of dissolution: while governments fell continuously fell, only one dissolution took place, which was in 1955. The Constitution of 1958 therefore put an end to this restriction upon dissolution: from then on, it would be a discretionary prerogative of the President of the Republic, as defined in Article 12.
However, the relative stability of parliamentary majorities since the 1962 legislative election has effectively removed the threat posed to governments by of a motion of no confidence to governments. Dissolution under the Fifth Republic thus has taken on a different use from that taught by traditional parliamentary government theory. It has only been used once to resolve a conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government, in 1962, while the other dissolutions carried out obey different logic.
Birth of dissolution in French law: the Consulate By Order of the Senate [...], the Legislative Body and the Tribunate may be dissolved.
— Excerpt from Article 55 of the Constitution of the Year X, August 4, 1802.
The Constitution of the Year X established Napoleon's new government, which included the conservative Senate and the Consulate, which was composed of three parliamentary chambers:
the Council of State, which drafted Bills; the Tribunate, which debated Bills but could not vote; the Legislative Body, which could not discuss Bills, but whose members voted on Bills after reviewing the Tribunate's debate record.
The Constitution of the Year X was also the first constitutional text to mention the possibility of ending the mandate of one of the chambers. The procedure for dissolution it set out was quite exceptional, reflecting Napoleon Bonaparte's view that his new regime was not a parliamentary one, but rather authoritarian. Dissolution of the Tribunate or the Legislative Body—two chambers of the tricameral parliament—was to be effectuated by Order of the conservative Senate (a "senatus consultum"), but the power to issue this directive was reserved for the First Consul, that is, Napoleon himself, under Article 56 of the Constitution. This appears to have been intended to ensure the subordination of chambers that already had very restricted powers, particularly since no time limit was set for convening the newly elected chamber.
During the Restoration Each year, the King shall convene the two Chambers and prorogue them. He may dissolve the Chamber of Deputies of the departments, in which case he shall convene a new Chamber within three months.
— Article 50 of the Constitutional Charter of June 4, 1814.
The right of the Monarch to dissolve the lower chamber of parliament appeared as early as the draft constitution proposed by the Conservative Senate in April 1814.See the draft for the senatorial constitution of 6 April 1814. The Constitutional Charter of 1814 confirmed this prerogative, which was widely accepted in circles of constitutional thought at the time.The draft constitution of 29 June 1815, drawn up by a committee of the short-lived Chamber of Representatives during the Hundred Days, remained unimplemented.
It appears the drafters initially intended to guarantee the pre-eminence of the King of France and prevent the Chamber of Deputies from encroaching on his prerogatives. However, it soon became clear that royal pre-eminence could only be based on the lower chamber's support for the government's policies—support made difficult by the lack of organization into political parties—and therefore upon the truly parliamentary mechanism of confidence in the government. Given these conditions, resorting to dissolution to settle a conflict between the executive and legislative branches was akin to making the electorate, restricted by the system of census suffrage, "the final arbiter of institutions".
Dissolution before 1830 The three dissolutions that took place before 1830—in 1816, 1824 and 1827—all conform to the theory of parliamentary rule.We must add that of 1815, which enabled the King to dismiss the Chamber of the Hundred Days, but it was a marginal event in the Restoration.
The first dissolution, on 5 September 1816, occurred when the parliamentary majority became in conflict with the government. Essentially, the Chamber of Deputies elected in August 1815 (called the "Unobtainable Chamber") whose majority was ultra-royalist, wished to dominate the Richelieu government. To safeguard his governmental prerogatives against the grip of the parliamentary majority, Louis XVIII, urged on his Police Minister, Decazes, dissolved the lower chamber, asking the electorate to arbitrate the conflict. The election that followed was a resounding success for the King and the government.
The other two dissolutions—in 1824 and 1827—arose from a different context, in which the King used it to avert a possible conflict between the government and the lower chamber. In each case, Charles X wished to protect the Villèle government, whose survining majority had been weakened by political circumstances. The 1824 election supported the Villèle government, but that of 1827 brought in a moderate majority. For this, the King drew the only logical political consequence, and he appointed a moderate, who would head the Martignac government.
Authoritarian drift: the last dissolution of 1830 In August 1829, Charles X dismissed the moderate Martignac government, instead appointing ultra-royalist Jules de Polignac to head a new government. To resolve the conflict between the moderate Chamber of Deputies and the ultra-royalist government, the King appealed to the electorate on 16 May 1830, in keeping with parliamentary tradition.
However, typical parliamentary thinking was undermined when Charles X refused to accept the result of the 1830 election, which favoured the moderates. The King, politically opposed by his own electorate, therefore this powers under Article 14 of the Charter of 1814This article stipulates that "The King [...] shall issue the regulations and ordinances necessary for [...] the security of the State", a provision interpreted as allowing the King to legislate without the involvement of Parliament when necessary . to issue the four "Saint-Cloud Ordinances" on 25 July 1830, one of which dissolved the newly elected Chamber of Deputies before it had even met. However, this dissolution never took place, due to the "Three Glories" revolution of 1830.
By refusing to accept the verdict of the ballot box in 1830, Charles X imposed an authoritarian vision of the system born in 1814, in which dissolution lost its parliamentary credibility, becoming nothing more than a tool for dominating the lower chamber. This gave rise to a veritable constitutional deadlock, which would ultimately be resolved by the 1980 revolution.
During the July Monarchy Each year, the King shall convene the two Chambers and prorogue them. He may dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, in which case he shall convene a new Chamber within three months.
— Article 42 of the Constitutional Charter, August 14, 1830. The text of the Charter of August 14, 1830 remained largely unchanged from that of its predecessor, with only minor alterations. The main change lay in its novel interpretation, for where Louis XVIII had firmly intended to "bestow" the Charter of 1814, Louis-Philippe I used the Charter of 1930 to create a "pact" with the nation. The monarchical legitimacy of Louis-Philippe I's reign remains controversial—some believed that he, being a Bourbon, had a blood right to rule (Guizot), while others thought his legitimacy stemmed from the people, in spite of any blood right from being a Boubon (Dupin). But both theories agreed that the new Charter was a pact between the King and his country, rather than a unilateral imposition of his will.
The general institutional spirit was transformed by the circumstances in which the Charter was conceived: the negation of national sovereignty represented by the Charter of 1814 was replaced by a regime born of revolution and an appeal by the elected chamber to another sovereign. Henceforth, two distinct centers of power emerged: the King and the elected chamber. As the Charter of 1830 was substantially no more detailed than its predecessor, this new interpretation of a compromise was primarily a result of new political practice, but the essence of the regime was clearly parliamentary.
Use consistent with parliamentary theory Use of dissolution abounded in the July Monarchy. Indeed, no legislature ever completed its normal five-year term. Six dissolutions occurred:For all dates, the source is .
31 May 1831 (election of 1831);These elections were decided not for political reasons, but to immediately implement the new electoral law, which introduced an extended system of censal suffrage. 25 May 1834 (election of 1834); 3 October 1837 (election of 1837); 2 February 1839 (election of 1839); 13 June 1842 (election of 1842); 6 July 1846 (election of 1846).
These numerous dissolutions never drew any protests from the country despite the intensive use of the procedure, which could have been construed as abuse. Dissolution was often carried out on the initiative of the government, which could thus choose the most opportune moment to hold new elections, a use largely aligned with British-style parliamentarism.
Dissolution stripped of its political power However, despite its frequent use, the right of dissolution had little effect beyond the holding of the elections themselves. With the exception of the 1846 election, governments that should have benefited from dissolution—thanks to strengthened majorities sufficient to carry out their policies—actually emerged from elections weaker than they had entered them.