FRENCH PROBLEM

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 3, 4 January 1936, Page 15

FRENCH PROBLEM

IMPOTENT MINISTERS

THEIR LACK OF AUTHORITY

XO IT HAD OF STATE

To understand very clearly the position in regard to France it is worth while reading "France in Danger," by Andre Tardieu, a former Premier of that country and one of the leading statesmen during the past twenty years, says a writer in "Current Problems." This book, "France in Danger," deals with the entire political and economic crises with which his country is perpetually faced, and for which there appears to be, and he agrees, no remedy except a complete reorganisation of the constitutional and political system which, when carried out, would have its effect upon the economic system of the country. He describes the present system as being "chaos, patronage, and instability, with everybody in command and nobody responsible." M. Tardieu points out that such a condition as is prevalent in France would not be tolerated by any Frenchman either in his business or in his home, and the whole of the French people put up with it when the country's interests arc at stake!

The remedy lies in purifying that system by destroying various elements in its composition. It has not been sufficient, and could not be sufficient, as has happened so often, that when the people 'declare they are dissatisfied they are promised extensive reforms — administrative reforms, political reforms, and so forth. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate applaud enthusiastically when the promises are made, though most of the people who applaud there do not know what it is all about. But, when the time comes to introduce those reforms and to put affairs in a sound condition, there is the bitterest opposition, because France, although it has a Government it does not govern and a Parliament which seldom legislates, is really run by the vested interests of the individual, NO HEAD. The State lacks authority. There is no head and, consequently, without a chief there can be no collective organisation. The President of the Republic is not the chief in France; he is merely a headpiece, handicapped by Parliament on one side and by ministerial crises and public disorder on the other. The President of the Council (what we call the Premier or Prime Minister) is certainly not the chief. He is merely the head of the Cabinet, the composition of which is dictated by political groups. The fate of each Cabinet is settled immediately the first ministerial address has been delivered to the Chambers. The Chambers are autocratic; Ministers are the partisan slaves of Parliamentary and bureacratic clique*. Consequently, France is a body without a head and, as the brain-power and the ability of observation rests in the head, the body cannot realise the fact that it is headless. The first reform which is necessary is the creation of a normal legislative mechanism. The trouble in France is that the Constitution is 58 years old. It was created as the result of the panic which naturally followed the downfall of the third Napoleon and of the Third Empire and the Franco-Prussian war. A law does not necessarily last for ever, and a constitution requires revision from time to time to conform witl. altered circumstances and the altered outlook of man. The Constitution was drawn up in 1875. In Tardieu's opinion the laws which govern it are void of substance and lacking in common sense, but they bear one undoubted characteristic-^tlyit they were intended and were drafted so that they could be revised from time to time, but owing to the battle of political and economic interests in France they never have been revised. WEAKENED POSITION. The danger of this is, not only internal to France, but it means the weakening of France in her international position. The first thing that is required is to make the ruling bodies of the Republic independent. The executive arm is enslaved by the Legislature; the Legislature is controlled by electoral bodies; and the electoral bodies are just the servants of oligarchies. Only by restoring the liberty of the Governmental bodies will the rights of citizenship in France be restored to the people. Two great reforms, therefore, are necessary. The Chamber of Deputies can treat any Government in the most casual manner, because the members are elected for a fixed period and cannot be dismissed. Parliament cannot be dissolved except at the end of that period. The Government, therefore, not being able, however righteous its cause, to appeal to the people over the heads of the Parliamentarians, has no real authority. Except when the people, and consequently Parliament, is overcome with panic a Government cannot do what it likes and what is necessary.

The second great reform is to take away from the Deputies the right to propose expenditure. Today any member of the Chamber of Deputies can introduce a Bill to spend money without any limit upon the amount to be spent except what he may specify in his Bill. These private financial resolutions are all for the benefit of special classes or of special interests, and the support of other Deputies for the purpose of passing such a Bill is freely bought. As long as this rig'it of introducing private financial Bills continues, the Deputies are the slaves of the interests, because those interests can get rid of them at the next election and stop all their perquisites. The member of Parliament who represents an interest no longer represents the people. The third reform is to give women the same political rights as men, which may have a great deal in its favour because women in France are generally recognised as being more shrewd than the men. The fourth proposal is for a Consultative Referendum. COMPLETE CHANGE. If these various reforms, particularly the first two, were carried through and they have been recommended from the eighth year of the fifty-eight years of the Third Republic, there would be a complete change in the political outlook of France, and, consequently, in the economic outlook. One of the greatest troubles, besides those of electors and deputies, which France has to face is the problem of the officials. The public functions in France, as elsewhere, have greatly increased as the collective needs of the country have expanded. The result is that there are now more than one million officials of all kinds in France, including State officials, departmental officials, and municipal officials. This large number is the outcome of the duty of governments to make certain of the continuity of the public services.

The position of the civil servant is, of course, very strong, for in every country he holds his status and his authority from the constitution and the law. He receives a salary and a pension both fixed by law and paid out of the funds voted by the Chamber. His entire situation, therefore, is one ijwhick is decided by law and not by

1 private contract. He is the executive of the State to carry out a task which the State cannot itself carry out. He is, therefore, the mechanism which drives the machinery of the State. There is no distinction between officials engaged in physical or manual labour and those engaged in administrative work. There is no differentiation between any grades, ranks, or classes of officials. They receive all their orders in the name of the State, justified by the laws and for the purpose of the public interest.

The civil servant therefore —or the public servant as we call him—is the servant of the public interest, i.e., the servant of the public. That is the true legalistic foundation of the public service in every country. For many years, however, not only in France, people have been turning their backs on those legalistic foundations, so that, as in France, a state of utter anarchy has arisen. This has been due also to the centralisation of work in Paris. Centralisation has become extreme in France. LITTLE IN PARIS. In the days of the monarchy only a very small portion of the administra- } tive work of the country was carried ! out in Paris. Parliamentary Commit- | tees had very little to do with administration, in fact they were negligible. [ The modern system commenced in the days of the Consulate and the Empire. Everything converged on Paris. Red tape became the supreme public authority and, with red tape, the public official became, not the servant of the public interest, but the master of the public interest. When the public servant became the master of the public j interest and of the public, it became natural, such is the low morality of politicians, that they used the public service as a means of increasing its public following and of its influence in the electorates. Balzac, who wrote a good deal- of serious stuff as well as those naughty novels which the Customs ban, wrote about the middle of the last century: "Ministers are under the impression that the more people the Government employs the stronger it will be." We have had the same thing in Britain. The Americans have carried the abuse to extremes, and in the United States it is cynically described as the "booty system." The late Lord Bryce, in his well-known work on the Cgnstitution of the United States, says: "The public official gets a salary fcir services given to his political party in the past, or present, or to be given in the future." Well, this has been going on in France from the middle of the last century, and especially strongly during the Third Republic, and unfortunately eminent statesmen of that country have constantly enjoined their administrative officials to adopt a political attitude in all their public activities. | When, at the beginning of this century, in 1901, the then Governor, Waldeck Russo, extended to all citizens the right of collective bargaining, the public servants naturally took advantage of it. They formed themselves into what is called a "syndicate," which was to represent the administrative proletariat, and this syndicate aimed at a political rather than a professional and technical programme. It is affiliated with what is called the General Workers' Union, and is definitely under the control of the Socialist Party. It favours the class war, and it is frankly revolutionary. It has taken part in numerous strikes since 1902, and in particular in the One Hour General Strike of all the public services which took place in 1933. NO STATUTE. j The point of view of the public servant in France is, as has been recently stated, that they will accept no statute governing their position. They desire the Common Law and a contract for work. Said the general secretary: "There are no officials, there are only wage earners." Well of course a public service based on those lines must be a source of constant trouble, and the public service in France includes such an enormous variety of workers—roadmenders, dockyard workers, as two examples. The problem of the public servant, therefore, is not only administrative. It is political. The public servant has special privileges, but they refuse to undertake special duties. They are permanent in their jobs and, consequently, they are immune from the risks attending a battle at the polls, but on the other hand they are free to take part in that battle on the voter's side. In America, where is the system of "booty" the public official is principally an elected official and he has no permanency of employment, and takes the risk of losing his job at each election In France the public official eats his cake and has it top. In England abstention from politics and fixity of tenure are the conditions of employment in the Civil Service. The routine work of a State Department can only be maintained in spite of the changes of Party Government if the officials of that service do not take an active part in the acts which bring about changes in majority. That is why the continuity of British departmental work is so perfect. Not having this condition in France and in the United States is why departmental work lacks continuity, and is subject to violent changes of policy.

It has to be remembered, however, that it was the politicians who brought about this sad condition. It was the politicians who changed Government officials, into electoral agents. They created and egged on a fiery militia of teachers, Post Office clerks, road menders, road surveyors, postmen, etc. The public servant became the canvasser for political parties. The late Aristide Briand was largely responsible for this. He did not recognise, though he had to admit it afterwards, that, whilst he had' done this for opportunism and afterwards for Radicalism, the public servants today work solely for Socialism. The problem is an enormous one. and it is very doubtful if it can be solved without very serious internal trouble in France. Still, those are the two problems—the restoration of the power of the Executive; 'the right of the Government to appeal to the people; and the second problem the control of the public service, which has become the master of the public and actually aspires to be the Government.