On the one hand, the decision is judged to be “very clear and unanimous”. On the other hand, it is considered “without legal value”. Wednesday June 12, 2024, Éric Ciotti, president of LR, was dismissed from his post by the party’s political office, which sanctioned his wish to form an alliance with the National Rally for the legislative elections.
Annie Genevard, the party’s general secretary, insisted on the legitimacy of the decision, taken after Eric Ciotti closed the doors of the party headquarters. The ousted president announced that he wanted to launch a “legal recourse” . An imbroglio which, ultimately, poses several questions about the legitimacy of each person within the Republican apparatus. West France answers five of them.
Follow our live broadcast this Thursday, June 13, dedicated to the legislative elections
1. Is the decision to oust Eric Ciotti legitimate?
The party’s statutes do not concretely provide for the hypothesis of the exclusion of its president. However, they allow us to detail some elements of the process that could lead to its exclusion.
First, the LR statutes stipulate that the convening of the party’s Political Bureau without the approval of its president is possible. “The Political Bureau meets at the invitation of the President of the Movement, who sets its agenda, or at the initiative of a quarter of the members of the National Council”, specifies the document. On this point, the anti-alliance line with the RN will therefore have to prove that this quorum has been reached. It is, a priorifor this reason a new political bureau was convened this Thursday, the first meeting of the body having obviously not made it possible to do so.
Proving that this quorum is reached is all the more important since, basically, the body is fully authorized to sanction Éric Ciotti. “The Political Bureau exercises the power of statutory sanction with regard to members of the Movement holding an elective mandate and members exercising a government function”, it is written in the party statutes. Technically, Eric Ciotti being a deputy, he can therefore be sanctioned and excluded by the political bureau.
However, the party’s internal regulations indicate that “sanctions against members are pronounced following a contradictory procedure”. Was this procedure followed? The next few hours will probably answer this question.
Read also: Closed doors, exfiltrated employees, Ciotti excluded… The story of a political earthquake on the right
2. In the end, who leads the party?
The answer largely depends on the legality, or not, of Eric Ciotti’s ouster. As long as it is not validated, a priori, nothing prevents Éric Ciotti from continuing to exercise his functions. Symbolically, the deputy for Alpes-Maritimes went to his presidential office this Thursday morning. Which he did not hesitate to show, in a video published on his X account.
But if the political bureau which will meet in the coming hours manages, as seems likely to be the case, to gather the signatures of a quarter of the members of the national council, Éric Ciotti may well be excluded from the party. In such a case (that of a “presidential vacancy”), it is the deputy vice-president of the party who directs it. In this case, François-Xavier Bellamy. Annie Genevard, general secretary of the party, is expected to maintain an important role in its operational and daily management.
Some elected officials are also considering what the constitutionalist Thibaut Mulier recalls is the hypothesis of “the impediment of the president”. “It is a situation which is not defined very clearly but it broadly overlaps with the idea that the president has a temporary or permanent incapacity to exercise his function.” According to certain sources, Eric Ciotti seems to be prevented from accessing his emails or the party’s social networks. In a maximalist interpretation of the statutes, this could be considered as a vector of impediments. Thibaud Mulier adds that the fact of seeing almost the entire national council oppose these decisions could also be considered as a reason for impediment.
If recognized, this impediment would have the same consequences as the recognition of a vacancy in the presidency.
3. Who will nominate the candidates for the next legislative elections?
At first glance, the question of governance at LR seems all the more strategic as it comes at a time when the party must nominate its candidates for the next legislative elections.
But, in reality, on this point, it seems that the Ciotti affair has little impact. “A National Nomination Commission is designated, in compliance with the principle of parity, before each local or national election, by the National Council, on a proposal from the Political Bureau”, thus indicate the statuses of LR. If the president of the party is indeed a member of these two entities, his presence is counterbalanced by that of many other national executives, almost unanimously opposed to the Ciotti line.
Furthermore, the decisions of this investiture commission, chaired by MP Michèle Tabarot, “are subject to the approval of the National Council”. The approval of the names of the candidates is therefore collegial, and depends very little on the president of the party. In fact, with regard to the 2024 legislative elections, Éric Ciotti was excluded, like one of his most fervent supporters, Christelle d’Intorni.
4. What should party employees do?
And the permanent members of the party, these employees who run the small business that is, in the end, a political party? Who should they swear allegiance to? To the president elected by the activists or to those who provide the interim? Here again, the decision as to the legality of the exclusion of Eric Ciotti will decide the question. But meanwhile ? What should they do?
Neither the statutes nor the internal regulations of the party specifically mention the conduct that party officials must follow in such a case. However, article 25 of the statutes indicates that “the President of the Movement presides over national authorities and ensures the execution of their decisions”. This last clarification may suggest that the employees, responsible for carrying out certain of these tasks, are therefore placed under the authority of the president of the party. This would explain in particular why some of them had the party headquarters closed on Wednesday. “The president has decided to close the doors of the headquarters at 12 p.m. today. Everyone must therefore leave the office and continue teleworking”was written in an email sent to employees on Wednesday.
However, the statutes also indicate that “the Secretary General runs the daily life of the Movement and oversees its organization and functioning. » A clarification which may imply that Annie Genevard retains an important role vis-à-vis employees and party structures. Symbolically, it was she who reopened the party headquarters, closed by Éric Ciotti. This would also explain that, as indicated The Parisian certain employees were able to prevent Éric Ciotti from accessing his emails.
5. Who has control of LR’s communication device?
The episode brought smiles to the web. On Wednesday, while party executives were fighting in the public square, LR’s account on the social network X seemed to change hands several times, passing from those of pro-Ciotti to those of other party executives.
This skirmish may seem anecdotal but it raises a question that is less so: in such a situation of tension, and while their role is very important during the electoral campaign, what line should the party’s communicators follow? The founding documents do not say anything specific about this scenario. It is therefore possible to envisage their attitude being guided by the same rules as those of all employees.
