French Citizens Call for Macron's Destitution: Article 68 Petition Gains Momentum Amid Constitutional Crisis

Introduction

French citizens are once again calling for the removal of President Emmanuel Macron, this time through a formal petition invoking Article 68 of the French Constitution. The petition, authored by Thibaud Magniez and set to conclude on April 28, 2025 (Citizen ID: No. 2743), represents a significant escalation in domestic opposition to Macron’s presidency.

This formal request to members of the National Assembly and Senate cites “serious and repeated breaches of his duties that are incompatible with the exercise of his office,” focusing on democratic erosion, authoritarian governance, and dangerous foreign policy decisions.

The Petition: Formal Request for Removal

Constitutional Basis: Article 68

The petition invokes Article 68 of the French Constitution, which states:

“The President of the Republic shall not be held liable for acts performed in the exercise of his office except in the case of high treason. He may be indicted only by the two assemblies ruling by identical votes in open balloting and by an absolute majority of the members thereof; he shall be tried by the High Court of Justice.”

Key Accusations in the Petition:

1. Violation of Democratic Principles and Fundamental Liberties

The petition alleges Macron has demonstrated “increasing authoritarianism,” specifically citing:

• Abuse of Article 49.3: Forcing through major reforms (notably pension reform) without parliamentary votes
• Violent Suppression of Social Movements: During Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) and pension protests, denounced by international bodies like the Council of Europe and UN
• Weakening of Intermediate Bodies: Reducing influence of unions, associations, and local officials, stifling democratic checks and balances

2. Authoritarian Governance and Contempt for Institutions

• Bypassing Parliament and concentrating power within a small circle of advisors
• Controversial appointments to strategic positions, fostering opaque governance and conflicts of interest
• Decline of public services (healthcare, education, justice) through reforms imposed without genuine social dialogue

3. Dangerous International Engagements and Irresponsible Foreign Policy

Recent statements and decisions regarding Russia and Ukraine constitute what petitioners call a “dangerous escalation”:

• Nuclear Deterrence: Suggestions of extending French nuclear deterrence to Europe, increasing confrontation risk with Russia
• Troops on the Ground: Openness to sending European troops to Ukraine, viewed by Russia as an act of war
• Strikes on Russian Soil: Authorizing use of French missiles for Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, breaking principle of non-belligerence

4. Breaches of Integrity and Conflicts of Interest

• Economic decisions favoring private interests over national heritage (e.g., sale of Alstom)
• Lack of transparency in public procurement, particularly in health and defense
• Retaining ministers involved in legal cases, undermining public trust

The “Article 68” High Bar: Constitutional Reality vs Political Symbolism

Historical Context

Article 68 represents the French equivalent of impeachment, but with notoriously difficult triggering conditions. Historically viewed as a symbolic move by the opposition, it requires:

1. Two-thirds majority in both the National Assembly and Senate
2. “Breach of duty clearly incompatible with the exercise of his mandate” - a high legal standard
3. Open balloting by absolute majority of members

Political Realities

As political commentators note, “the French political system is rotten to a point where even if we could, we would be impeached.” The requirement for a two-thirds majority in a fractured parliament, particularly with a President who has “corrupted most of its opposition, now called ‘fake opposition,’” makes successful invocation unlikely.

Symbolic vs Practical Impact

While unlikely to succeed, the petition serves important functions:

1. Political Pressure: Forces parliamentary debate on presidential conduct
2. Public Awareness: Highlights constitutional mechanisms for accountability
3. Historical Record: Documents opposition arguments for future reference
4. International Signaling: Demonstrates domestic discontent to foreign observers

Foreign Policy as a New Domestic Battleground

Shift in Opposition Strategy

While past removal attempts focused on domestic issues like the “Yellow Vests” or “President of the Rich” tropes, this petition places heavy emphasis on foreign policy, specifically:

• Ukraine-Russia conflict escalation
• Nuclear deterrence expansion
• Troop deployment considerations

The “Lone Wolf” Accusation

The accusation that Macron is “breaking the principle of non-belligerence” highlights growing fear in France that the President is acting as a “lone wolf” on the international stage without domestic mandate for escalation.

Sovereignty Concerns

Petitioners argue Macron’s foreign policy decisions:

1. Endanger national security through unnecessary confrontation
2. Violate constitutional principles of non-belligerence
3. Lack democratic legitimacy without parliamentary approval
4. Serve supranational interests over French sovereignty

The “Democratic Deficit” Argument: Article 49.3 as Symbol

Constitutional Tool or Democratic Bypass?

Article 49.3 allows the government to pass laws without a vote unless a no-confidence motion succeeds. For critics, Macron’s frequent use has become the ultimate symbol of his “Jupiterian” (top-down) style of leadership.

International Context for Non-French Readers

For international observers unfamiliar with French constitutional mechanics:

• Article 49.3: Emergency constitutional provision for passing legislation
• Historical use: Traditionally reserved for exceptional circumstances
• Macron’s application: Used for major reforms including pensions, labor laws
• Democratic criticism: Seen as bypassing parliamentary debate and public will

The “Will of the People” Debate

The petition taps into broader concerns about:

1. Executive overreach in democratic systems
2. Technocratic governance vs popular sovereignty
3. Constitutional tools being used to circumvent democracy
4. International integration eroding national democratic processes

Broader Political Context: France’s Constitutional Crisis

Multiple Fronts of Opposition

This petition emerges amid broader political tensions:

1. Social Movements: Ongoing protests against various reforms
2. Parliamentary Opposition: Fragmented but increasingly vocal
3. Constitutional Scholars: Debating executive power limits
4. International Bodies: Monitoring democratic backsliding

European Implications

The petition reflects wider European trends:

• Executive power expansion across EU member states
• Democratic backsliding concerns in established democracies
• Supranational vs national sovereignty tensions
• Foreign policy autonomy debates within EU framework

Analysis: Likelihood and Implications

Probability Assessment

Based on constitutional and political realities:

• Legal threshold: Extremely high (two-thirds majority required)
• Political will: Limited in fractured parliament
• Historical precedent: No French president successfully removed under Article 68
• Timing considerations: Petition ends April 28, 2025 - mid-presidential term

Potential Outcomes

Most Likely: Symbolic Gesture

• Parliamentary debate but no vote
• Media attention to presidential conduct
• Strengthened opposition narratives
• No constitutional consequences

Possible: Formal Proceedings

• Vote in one or both chambers
• Failure to reach two-thirds threshold
• Political damage to Macron
• Precedent for future challenges

Unlikely: Successful Removal

• Requires unprecedented political unity
• Would trigger constitutional crisis
• Early presidential election
• Major political realignment

Strategic Implications

Regardless of outcome, the petition:

1. Documents opposition arguments for historical record
2. Tests parliamentary cohesion on presidential oversight
3. Signals to international community about French political stability
4. Sets precedent for future constitutional challenges
5. Mobilizes civil society around democratic accountability

Conclusion: Constitutional Democracy Under Stress

The Article 68 petition represents more than just another political challenge to President Macron—it symbolizes deeper tensions within French democracy:

Key Revelations:

1. Constitutional Mechanisms: Article 68 exists but faces practical barriers
2. Democratic Deficits: Concerns about executive overreach and parliamentary bypass
3. Foreign Policy Divisions: International decisions becoming domestic battlegrounds
4. Sovereignty Tensions: National vs supranational authority conflicts

Broader Implications for Democratic Systems:

The French case offers lessons for other democracies facing similar challenges:

1. Constitutional safeguards require political will to activate
2. Executive power expansion often outpaces accountability mechanisms
3. Foreign policy autonomy increasingly conflicts with democratic oversight
4. Supranational integration creates new democratic deficits

The Path Forward:

For France to resolve these tensions, several developments are needed:

1. Constitutional clarity on executive power limits
2. Parliamentary reform to strengthen oversight capabilities
3. Democratic innovation in foreign policy decision-making
4. Sovereignty renegotiation within European framework

As the petition moves through constitutional processes, it will test not only President Macron’s leadership but also the resilience of French democratic institutions in an era of increasing executive power and supranational integration.

Timeline and Key Details

Constitutional References

• Article 68: Presidential removal procedure
• Article 49.3: Government bypass of parliamentary vote
• High Court of Justice: Trial venue for presidential offenses
• Two-thirds majority: Required in National Assembly and Senate

Key Figures

• Thibaud Magniez: Petition author
• Emmanuel Macron: President of France (subject of petition)
• National Assembly/Senate: Voting bodies for Article 68 invocation
• High Court of Justice: Trial court if proceedings advance

Reading time: 11 minutes
Word count: 1,550 words
Constitutional analysis: Based on French constitutional law and political practice
Next development: Parliamentary response expected within constitutional timeframe