The Constitution shares defense powers between the President and the Prime Minister. In the event of cohabitation with the far right, the situation would arise from a pure political balance of power.
A bombshell. In an interview given to Telegram Wednesday June 26, the leader of the National Rally projected herself into a situation of cohabitation, following the second round of the legislative elections. And claimed that as Prime Minister, Jordan Bardella would oppose the President on the possible sending of troops to Ukraine. When questioned “How will the two men agree on diplomatic-military issues?” Marine Le Pen responds as follows: “Chief of the armed forces, for the President, it is an honorary title since it is the Prime Minister who holds the purse strings. Jordan [Bardella] does not intend to pick a quarrel with him, but he has set red lines. On Ukraine, the President will not be able to send troops.”
A sensitive point for the majority, several personalities of which reacted sharply. François Bayrou, for example, indicated on CNews: “When there are divisions, clashes in a country, we have a safeguard, it is the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. It was General de Gaulle who wrote it precisely to escape these divisions.” And to read article 15 of the Constitution which specifies that the “President of the Republic is the head of the armies”. He pursues : “If you claim that these are titles for show, then you are calling into question the Constitution […]. If you call into question the very text of the Constitution, you call into question the order of the country.”
On X, Marine Le Pen responded, in a form of backpedaling: “Without calling into question the reserved domain of the President of the Republic, in matters of sending troops abroad, the Prime Minister has, through budgetary control, the means of opposing it.”
What does the Constitution say on this subject? In terms of military defense, its various articles are clear, while leaving plenty of room for practice. Which, when it comes to cohabitation, can encompass a wide range of situations.
Marine Le Pen is both “wrong and right”
For the three constitutional law specialists interviewed by CheckNews, Marine Le Pen has both “right and wrong” in his statements. Mathieu Carpentier, professor of public law at Toulouse Capitole University, recalls that «article 15 of the Constitution indicates in black and white that the President of the Republic is the head of the armies. From this point of view, it is not an honorary title. Furthermore, he chairs the Defense Council which is an important decision-making forum. Jean-Philippe Derosier, professor of public law in Lille, adds: “He is not a leader of the armies such as one imagines Napoleon on the battlefield guiding his troops. But all the same, he commands from a crisis unit, generally located at the Elysée.”
However, Mathieu Carpentier nuance, “the simple fact that the expression chief of armies exists does not say everything, it is the practice which fixes things”. In so-called “normal” periods, or when majorities coincide, the President of the Republic “has a very important influence. He is beyond the role of referee. we are told. Even if a “consultation is always necessary between the two heads of the executive, because the President needs the countersignature of the Prime Minister”, recalls Jean-Philippe Derosier.
Because the Prime Minister, in matters of Defense, also holds important and concrete powers. According to articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution, the government “has the administration and the armed force”, and the Prime Minister is “responsible for national defense”. Concretely, it is therefore the government which implements the chosen policy in terms of budget (even if it is voted by Parliament), but also troop allocations or mission orders.
Lionel Jospin’s refusal
In the event of cohabitation, we therefore potentially find ourselves with two essential characters who must decide together… and who do not necessarily agree with each other. For constitutionalist Paul Cassia, “in a situation of cohabitation, the President overlooks the army as a sort of tutelary figure, but it is the Prime Minister who has the upper hand.” Jean-Philippe Derosier is a little more nuanced: “The two decide, they have to agree, otherwise it doesn’t happen. But in the configuration where Bardella would be elected Prime Minister, Emmanuel Macron would be a defeated President and it would be difficult for him to oppose the Prime Minister, even though he is disowned.”
During the three previous cohabitations, President and Prime Minister were forced to collaborate. “They sought to fill the silences and tensions internal to the Constitution, even if there were hiccups, recalls Mathieu Carpentier. For example, at the end of the 90s, Jospin refused to send troops to Ivory Coast.” On paper, Marine Le Pen is therefore right to assert that Bardella can oppose the sending of troops to Ukraine, if this were to be instigated by the President, the latter not having a reserved domain in this matter.
Until now, even during periods of cohabitation, these disagreements have been rare. For Mathieu Carpentier, Jospin’s refusal to commit to Ivory Coast is “the exception which confirms the rule of a conciliatory practice, in matters of defense, in the name of the superior interest of the country”.
But it was then a so-called classic cohabitation, between left and right forces. In the event of the coming to power of a far-right party that claims to break away, the example of past cohabitations will perhaps not serve as a precedent. For Paul Cassia, “If cohabitation does not go well, it will be necessary to define, on a case-by-case basis, concretely, the perimeters of each. It will be a pure political power struggle.”
