Author: Laurent Bach
Senators have radically amended the law banning the simultaneous holding of parliamentary and local government functions: arguing for the principle that they have a particular right to be simultaneously elected at the local level, they voted up an amendment designed to reject the policy. This study shows, however, that the senators are little different from National Assembly deputies : there are no more of them with dual mandates and nor does their electoral survival depend more on keeping their local position. On the other hand, like deputies, senators who head a local collectivity participate much less in parliamentary activities than those who do not. Compared with the initial law completely banning multiple mandates, the effect of a prohibition targetting only the largest collectivities would be to limit the improvement of the participation of deputies and senators in the work of the parliament.
- The rate of multiple mandates is the same among senators as among deputies. It does not differ significantly according to the way in which senators are elected.
- Holding a local executive position does not help a candidate win a senatorial position.
- In general and regardless of the mandate situation, senators are 30 per cent more active in parliament than deputies; the senators who hold no local position are 40 per cent more active than those who do.
- Not to apply the ban on simultaneous multiple mandates to the mayors of small towns would reduce by 25 per cent the benefits of the law as originally proposed in relation to the participation of senators and deputies in the work of the parliament