Essentially the French President controls everything, form the smallest part of government to how it is ran. The French can't help but to create Kings, who have the power to control how the government was run. While the rest of the world's leaders are figureheads, while the U.S. President does have some power. The French President has more power then all of them combined. He appoints legislatures, who have their own special title. He also influences the people he rules over, to obey what he says to do in his new rules. Along with how in the past, the lower parts of government followed the ones in power loyally. Whether being a collaborator, or resistance fighter. They did what their leader said, that they will follow unconditionally. When the previous form of Democracy failed, when the leader was quite literally just a figure head.
I noticed that in your response, you compared the French president's position and powers to that of the United States' president and other world leaders. I think it is so interesting that the French president really has so much power, whereas many other world leaders are only 'figureheads'/ celebrities. The United States' president seems to fall in the middle of this range, and that is definitely a by-product of how this country came to be.
Chapter 9 introduces and explains General Charles de Gaulle, and examines the lasting effects of de
Gaulle’s time in power. The concept of absolutism is never fully stated, but one can quickly see how the French state could be considered absolutist. Absolutism, under this context, is basically the belief that one individual should have all power/authority. While the French state is not completely absolutist, there are definitely signs that the French state is absolutist to a degree- the main example being that the president position has quite a bit of power, with only a few checks set in place to prevent the seizing of more power. On page 120, the authors discuss the three “checks” that keep the president from fully becoming a dictator: “he must follow the Constitution, he must be elected by a universal suffrage, and he must obey the laws of the Republic, although a recent court decision made him unimpeachable…. There are no limits on the number of terms a French president can serve and until recently, those terms were seven years long” (Barlow and Benoît 120). The first check is self-explanatory, the president must follow the rules set in the Constitution. The second check is that the president must be elected by a majority of citizens. The third is, again, that he has to follow rules that were previously set into place. While these three checks are in place, the fact that a president is no longer impeachable could work against that. I can only really compare this to the checks and balances of the American government. Neither system is perfect, but both systems seem to work well enough. I think it is interesting that every country has its own way of governing itself- no two governments are exactly the same (for better or for worse, depending on how you see it)- but (for the most part) most countries are able to function smoothly without the whole structure falling in on itself.
I agree, it is interesting how each country seems to function well with its different governments. And while neither system is perfect, I feel that America should switch to the absolute majority of voters because our system is very outdated.
The reason behind the absolutis is that the president of France has the power to suspend the constitution and use emergency measures. Beside it president, Two more constitutions came to involve behind the absolutis. First, it gave the national assembly which makes the law and the Senate which is the consultative body. The assembly makes up of about 577 members which is called deputies. Their job is to make and change laws. To do this, they must share the power with the Prime minister of French. The second portion of it is the executive aim which is complete spate from the assembly line. Prime ministers are appointed by the presidents who make the decisions on law. The break portion of it is that the cabinet must be independent of the whiems of the national assembly. In addition, they must also give each cabinet member power. Furthermore, the president is also the head of the cabinet meetings and he decides the agenda along with the prime minister. For the speaking views of the president, their power is considered to be semi-presidential and semi- parliamentarioln. While it true that the president power is great. The president can dissolve the national assembly line if things don’t go accorded to plan and call in for a new legislative election. He also has the power to appoint a prime minister from the majority of the election. To compare to the United States, we have three different branches, while in France it considers being two different section of the continuation of French.
While reading chapter nine, I found myself very confused by the French's form of government. However, they are absolutists because the winner of their elections is always the absolute majority of the votes. I like the French voting system better compared to America's. The American voting system seems very outdated. Unlike the French, America has the electoral college. The French simply count the votes of the actual voters. Therefore, the winner of the election is actually the most popular option. America has had some controversy over the electoral college as well because the college was made hundreds of years ago. The purpose was to have educated people decide who was more fight to govern, however, now basically everyone has open resources and education to understand who to vote for. Everyone has a way to see the news and find information about candidates. The French are with the times while America is a bit behind when it comes to voters.
Absolutism within France was a political system associated with kings such as Louis XIV. Absolute rule meant that the power of the monarch was, in theory, unlimited except by divine law or by what was called natural law. In an absolute society, the only person who could change the powers of the monarch was the monarch him/herself. In a French absolute society, the king’s word was law. He had access to a standing royal army that was loyal only to him. When this system broke down, a country could descend into civil war.