851.01/3386: Telegram
The Acting American Representative to the French Committee of National Liberation at Algiers (Chapin) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:10 p.m.]
240. The Consultative Assembly adjourned yesterday evening until February 29 after having completed a 2–day debate on the form of the provisional government to be instituted in liberated France.
Various proposed plans were discussed the more important ones being (1) the Communist plan (my 154, January 14, 6 p.m.) and (2) the plan prepared by the Commission on State Reform of the Consultative Assembly on the basis of the De Menthon plan and the Vincent Auriol counterproposal (see my 130, January 11, 1 p.m.). This plan as finally submitted provided that (a) elections would not be held until 80% of the elaborate [electorate?] were able to participate; (b) during the interim period the municipal councils and departmental assemblies existing in 1939 would be reconvened after having been purged of collaborationists; (c) the existing Consultative Assembly would continue to function augumented by two delegates from each liberated department; (d) after the liberation of two-thirds of the department and of Paris the Government’s Assembly would become a Provisional Legislative Assembly; and (e) during the entire period until the holding of final elections the Committee would continue to be the provisional government of France.
It soon became obvious from the debates that neither plan had any chance of unanimous approval. With a view to bringing the debates to a conclusion and achieving some concrete result Mr. Philip18 speaking for the French Committee proposed that the Assembly agree on certain broad principles and refer the whole matter again to the Commission on State Reform and the French Committee for further study and resubmittal when the Assembly reconvenes at the end of next month. The broad principles suggested by him were (1) no [Page 648] definite constitutional change should be made until the sovereign people of France were given an opportunity to make their choice; (2) the immediate reconstitution of municipal governments and departmental assemblies; (3) the necessity for an assembly operating in conjunction with the department and (4) the final elections should be held at the earliest possible date.
The Assembly accepted this proposition in adjourning on the understanding that the Committee in conjunction with the Commission would prepare a draft ordinance which would be submitted to the Assembly at its next session.
The principles enumerated by Philip reflected the points upon which there had been unanimous agreements in the discussions the disagreements having arisen upon the methods of implementing the principles such as whether elections should be held immediately or not until after the return of prisoners and deportees, the manner in which the new elections should be held, the question of whether to restore the municipal and departmental bodies existing in 1939 and the membership of the Consultative Assembly and the manner of its choice.
Speakers including De Menthon and Philip unanimously rejected the reconstitution of the 1940 Assembly, any resort to plebiscites, and with the exception of the Communist members unanimously attacked any resort to elections by acclamation. Most of the speakers again including the two Committee members, rejected the application of the Treveneuc Law19 in that the existing General Councils are in no way capable of reflecting the popular will. Pierre Cot argued strongly against the institution of the Presidential system in France pointing out the radical differences, historical and geographical, between the United States and France, and stating that in French history the Presidential system had led inevitably to dictatorship. Several speakers exhibited considerable concern over the reactions of the Allied nations to measures which might be adopted for the provisional government.
It will be of interest to note that this debate is the first in which the Consultative Assembly has failed to reach unanimous agreement. While in the present instance this indicates that the prewar political parties appear to be continuing their differences in view, it is nevertheless encouraging to see that the Consultative Assembly is taking an independent line and is not acting merely as a rubber stamp for the French Committee.