But parliamentary obstruction is a classic of clashes in the Assembly. Under the Ve Republic, but not only. Explanations.
What's in an amendment?
The right to amendment exercised by deputies aims to modify a text submitted to the Assembly for a vote. With the idea, etymologically and ideally, of thus improving the bill or proposed law. But in practice, it often involves emptying the proposition of its content, in whole or in part.
In the case of the text examined this Thursday, dozens of amendments simply propose a modification of the title. Thus, the same MP varies the proposals behind the title “write the title thus: “Reform pensions? Why bother when you can repeal and win votes in the blink of an eye! ” or “retirement at 64: because ignoring reality and giving in to populist pressure, that's being responsible” or “Repealing the pension reform: a true masterpiece of demagoguery, where the we claim to save the future by ignoring the present.” The president of the Democratic group, Marc Fesneau, alone filed 73, including 32 linked to the title. Others imagine postponing the application of the text: “At the end of paragraph 82, substitute for the date: 1is September 2025, the date 1is January 2060.”
The trick often consists of having the same amendment taken up by several MPs, slightly modifying the terms: a word, a number, a date in the case of the example above. Modern means, IT and now AI, have sometimes come to support MPs when they lack imagination.
Objective: save speaking time
If this Thursday is clearly for the presidential camp to delay as much as possible a vote which would have a chance of winning if the RN rallies to the left, the usual goal of the amendments, from whatever camp they come , is to save speaking time.
To avoid abusive uses, the rules of the assembly provide that when identical amendments are tabled by deputies from the same group, only one can speak to defend the amendment concerned. Another delaying tactic to save speaking time: increase the number of session suspensions.
Records for certain texts
Whether they cry obstruction when the text presented comes from their ranks, or defend freedom of speech and debate when they themselves table a plethora of amendments, parliamentarians from the right and the left also handle the battle of amendments when they are in opposition. From the first legislature, which started in 1959, there was a monthly average of 130.4 amendments. An average which has continued to rise: during Jacques Chirac's last five-year term, it jumped to more than 4,200 monthly amendments – 212,449 over the entire legislature.
But the records are above all calculated and observed according to the texts examined. The more controversy it arouses in public opinion, the more likely it is that amendments will flourish. The record was reached in 2006, with 137,449 socialist and communist amendments (which had tabled three quarters of them) against the privatization of GDF. At the time, the President of the Assembly, Jean-Louis Debré, had formalized the real wall of paper that this represented for each deputy.
In 2006, Jean-Louis Debré, president of the Assembly, had all the amendments tabled by the left printed to show what each deputy would receive.
Daylimotion screenshot
Even the pension reform discussed in 2023, which the LFI proposal attempts to repeal, did not see as many: around 20,000, including 13,000 from LFI, less than for the first debate on this theme in 2020 ( 41,000, half of which came from the rebellious ranks).
Parliamentary obstruction seen from elsewhere
Slowing down debates to prevent a vote is a technique as old as the parliamentary system. In the United States, where the Senate is inspired by Rome, we also use amendments, but above all we have resurrected under a modern name – filibuster, coming from a Dutch word which gave rise to filibuster in French – a technique of Antique used by famous speakers. Speak, as long as you have the strength to remain standing, because you cannot interrupt a senator who has spoken. Which gives rise to pieces of bravery, symbolized in the cinema by James Stewart in the role of “Mr. Smith in the Senate”, an idealistic young senator confronted with corruption, who begins an oratory marathon to defend his cause. In this scenario, it is no longer even a minority, but a solitary rebel, who can obstruct.
The record is held by a senator from South Carolina in 1957: twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes. Everything is good for the orator thrown into a filibuster: reciting the Declaration of Independence, speeches by Lincoln or Washington, even starting to sing. The only way to interrupt the speaker is to collect 60 votes.
