Article 16: in the face of disorder, the temptation of full powers is not the answer

The facts

A week after the violence of 17 October, the LR mayor of Orléans, Serge Grouard, is standing his ground. In an interview published on Saturday evening by the JDD, on the eve of the close of the Rassemblement national congress in his city, he called on Emmanuel Macron to activate Article 16 of the Constitution, which grants the President of the Republic exceptional powers. He had already made this request on 20 October on Sud Radio.

We are on the brink of chaos — Serge Grouard, in the JDD

On 17 October, according to the Interior Ministry as quoted by Reuters, 550,000 people demonstrated against the cost of living, for the most part peacefully. But on the sidelines, at least 3,000 shops were damaged or looted, according to the minister for Commerce, Serge Papin. Laurent Nuñez offered his resignation, which the head of state refused. On Saturday 24 October, the mobilisation brought together around 410,000 people according to the authorities and 800,000 according to the CGT, the JDD reports. The Interior Minister said the marches had "gone well", while counting nearly 1,000 arrests and two people seriously injured, in Toulouse and Clermont-Ferrand.

What Article 16 says

The text, available on Légifrance, sets two cumulative conditions. First, there must be a "serious and immediate" threat to the institutions, the independence of the Nation, the integrity of its territory or its international commitments. Second, the regular functioning of the constitutional public authorities must be interrupted. As the review Actu-Juridique points out, this second condition is the most demanding. The President must consult the Prime Minister, the presidents of both assemblies and the Constitutional Council, then address the Nation. Parliament meets as of right and the National Assembly cannot be dissolved.

Since the 2008 revision, the Constitutional Council can be asked after thirty days to check that the conditions are still met, and it rules on its own initiative after sixty days. The only precedent dates back to 1961: General de Gaulle used it after the generals' putsch in Algiers, and the exceptional regime lasted until the end of September.

The positions

Serge Grouard's argument must be taken seriously. The mayor of Orléans believes, according to the JDD, that both conditions are met. He mentions a town hall gone up in smoke, Orléans' public buildings closed this weekend and a Parliament he considers "paralysed", unable to pass quickly the so-called "casseurs-payeurs" law or the budget. He disputes the term "full powers" and points to the safeguards provided by the text. The concern of local elected officials deserves an answer, even if other mayors, as France 3 notes, refuse to see the violence exploited to discredit the mobilisation.

The government, for its part, has not publicly responded to this request, according to the articles consulted. But Laurent Nuñez had stated as early as 19 October, on France Inter, that the situation was "not out of control" and that even a state of emergency, a far less radical tool, was not necessary at this stage, Reuters reported. On the left, the debate is first and foremost about responsibility for the violence. According to an investigation by Mediapart published on 19 October, a territorial intelligence superintendent reportedly noted that he had been instructed to attribute the movement to LFI, which he considered unfounded. The Interior Ministry denies having given such instructions, and LFI has announced it is referring the matter to the Cour de justice de la République.

Analysis

The disorder is real, and those who suffer from it are entitled to the protection of the state. But Article 16 was not made for this. The public authorities are functioning: the government governs, the prefects administer, the courts judge, since the alleged perpetrators of the Limoges fire have been charged and remanded in custody, according to France Info. Parliament is sitting and debating the budget. A Parliament without a majority is not an interrupted Parliament. Confusing the two would turn a political difficulty into a state of exception.

The Gaullist tradition itself argues for restraint. De Gaulle used Article 16 in the face of an attempted military coup, not in the face of urban riots. Ordinary law already offers graduated tools, from the 1955 law on the state of emergency to reinforcements of the police and gendarmerie. Resorting to the ultimate weapon six months before a presidential election in which the far right is the frontrunner, with 36% for Marine Le Pen according to the latest OpinionWay poll for the JDD, would also set a dangerous precedent: that of a president suspending the balance of powers in the name of order.

Finally, order is not restored by force alone. Hundreds of thousands of people are demonstrating peacefully against the cost of living. Responding to them with a regime of exception risks confusing demonstrators with rioters, and widening the divide instead of narrowing it.

Conclusion

Firmness against looters and social justice are not opposed: they are two sides of the same sense of the state. Rather than Article 16, the executive could bring together local elected officials, trade unions and the police without delay for a plan to secure town centres, coupled with concrete measures on purchasing power. The question remains open: who, in this campaign, will be able to defend the authority of the state without sacrificing the rule of law?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.