The democratic deficit threatening France and Britain

Unbelievably to British minds, some form of direct action is taking place in France all the time

The focus of British news coverage this weekend, World Cup aside, has been on a further row between Downing Street and Fleet Street. In contrast, the first item on France's television news on Saturday evening concerned angry farmers who attacked a supermarket in Avignon, upturned all the fresh fruit and vegetables on to the floor and declared that they were being ruined by low prices and imports. In my mind, however, the two stories are connected. For both are indicators of shortcomings in the way democracy is working.

If this linkage seems far-fetched, let us look more closely. The malfunction is the same in the two countries. It concerns the inability of the House of Commons or the National Assembly to provide effective restraint on the ambitions and actions of the executive powers.

In Britain, the national press has taken over the role of being the main opposition to the government of the day.

In France, on the other hand, discontent is swiftly translated into street protest. Almost unbelievably to British minds, some form of direct action is taking place somewhere in France nearly all the time. As soon as family doctors had finished their recent strike, the paediatricians took up the running. And after the unexpected success of the far-right in the first round of the French presidential election, schoolchildren and students embarked on protest marches every day. Everybody seemed to be proud of them. A new generation was being taught that the most effective way to influence political debate is to get onto the streets.

Of course, in Britain we do take to the streets, but not often. We have done so only twice in the past 15 years – the poll-tax riots directed against Mrs Thatcher and, more recently, the brief blockade of fuel supplies in protest against high taxes on petrol.

But while French newspapers regularly criticise government policy, they don't run campaigns. Ministers are safe from being attacked in such vicious terms that eventually they have no alternative but to resign. Nor are their lives investigated by journalists and their private behaviour described in detail for the delectation of newspaper readers. If that had been the case, Mr Chirac would never have become President.

These two forms of extra- parliamentary action have deep roots in both countries. Britain is nearly alone in the world in having a national press. It goes back to the early development of the railways and the fact that in such a small country, papers printed in the late evening in London could reach every town and village in the country by the next morning. A tradition of strong newspaper opposition to government has been long established. The words of Stanley Baldwin, when he was prime minister between the wars, still ring true: "what the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot through the ages".

But in countries the size of Germany, France and Italy, daily newspapers could not achieve such national reach. In Germany, all the major newspapers are regionally based. In Italy, all are regional except La Repubblica. In France, the regional press is strong while Le Monde, Figaro and Libération are weak outside Paris. In these countries, unlike Britain, the press simply does not have the power to mount a frontal attack on the government of the day.

Instead the French turn to an even older tradition – revolution. It is virtually built into the country's constitutional arrangements. The Fifth Republic was designed by De Gaulle to elevate the executive power of the President at the expense of the National Assembly. The weakness of successive Fourth Republic governments between 1945 and 1968 seemed to have shown the need for this change. However, since the successful storming of the Bastille prison in 1789, the French have also believed that direct action is virtually a constitutional right. And so long as the National Assembly remains relatively weak, they will continue to exercise it.

Likewise, so long as the House of Commons continues emasculated, with members treated like foot soldiers, with select committees deliberately weakened, with the Prime Minister more concerned with press management than presenting his case in Parliament, newspapers will continue to lay siege to individual ministers, demand resignations and look to bring down the Prime Minister if they can.

Contrast the weakness of the British and French assemblies with the strength of the US Congress. Congress is still willing to try to impeach a president, as Bill Clinton found out. And its committee system can handle the Enron scandal and it can find out what went wrong with US intelligence gathering before 11 September.

Of course, I accept that even if the House of Commons and the National Assembly operated perfectly, British newspapers would still serve on the front line and red-blooded Frenchmen would still march behind their banners. But what I am arguing is that it is the intensity of the action which matters and that by this measure there is at present cause for concern on both sides of the Channel.

aws@globalnet.co.uk