While IÂ’m not too keen on what is going on in France, I canÂ’t bring myself to denounce the students. There are too many conflicting agendas at work, and this sort of mass protest provides cover for the small group of anarchists, vandals, and thugs who couldnÂ’t care less about the CPE. But the question at the centre of the dispute is not the specific policy, but the dysfunction of the French parliamentary system.

When I first arrived in France at the start of the anti-CPE protests, I was a bit confused. Under the impression that the CPE was a bill still under debate in the parliament, I asked some students why they didnÂ’t work with the opposition parties to try to water the bill down, or (better) push for it to be expanded to the job market as a whole. I was a bit surprised to hear that the CPE wasnÂ’t a bill, it was a law that had already been passed by the legislature and was simply awaiting ratification in the senate.

I spent the better part of an hour trying to figure out just how things worked over there:

Why didnÂ’t you start the protests before the bill became law?

Why didnÂ’t the legislature draw attention to the problems?

Why didnÂ’t the media get involved sooner? Etc.

No one had any answer except to say look, that isnÂ’t the way it works here. The bill got presented as a fait accompli. The only thing to do is take to the streets.

It is only when you look at France that you realize how open and effective our democratic institutions really are. Ours is an essentially adversarial and partisan system, which is what a lot of people donÂ’t like about it. TheyÂ’d rather politics be more consensual and coalition-based, with less party discipline, more free votes, and so on. But look at France, and see our systemÂ’s virtues.

Sure, question period in the Commons might be a zoo, but it serves its function of focusing sustained public attention on divisive issues. The media and public interest groups get involved, and the government is forced to decide how much political capital it can afford to spend on the issue. It can either push through, moderate its position, or back down entirely. In the end, regardless of what happens, democracy is served. The adversarial nature of parliament motivates public consent for the system as a whole. Win or lose, people accept the result.