This article examines the French National Assemblys reaction to the genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda, before, during, and after the massacre, and how this dramatic event reveals the nature of the institutions of the Fifth Republic, a presidentialized parliamentary regime, as well as their dysfunctions. The cooperation agreements signed between France and Rwanda in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s generated little parliamentary debate. French deputies did, however, question ministers both orally and in writing in the early 1990s, as France became militarily involved. But they encountered obstacles related to the Constitution of the Fifth Republic and presidential practices. The head of the executive branch has enjoyed autonomy of action in military and diplomatic matters since General de Gaulle. Seemingly powerless, they nevertheless acted in the face of the genocide of the Tutsi (April-July 1994). They addressed written and oral questions to the ministers. Most sessions in the National Assembly provide an opportunity for members of both the majority and the opposition to question ministers about the situation in Rwanda during the question period in Parliament. Following the genocide, parliamentarians exercised multifaceted oversight of France, utilizing the full range of powers granted to them by the Constitution. They submitted written and oral questions to the government on various post-genocide issues up until the fifteenth legislature. In 1998, members of parliament employed a new approach that renewed their oversight role: the fact-finding mission on Rwanda. Finally, the issue of the genocide against the Tutsi was addressed through hearings, a standard method for gathering information for the legislative branch. Political figures and experts can be heard by parliamentary committees that deem their testimony valuable. Ultimately, French members of parliament acted within the framework defined by the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, without being able to influence the policies of the Élysée Palace before or after 1994. The limitations of their actions reflect the dysfunctions of the French presidential parliamentary system. This is the conclusion reached by the 1998 fact-finding mission and the Duclert report presented in 2021. This explains the new directions given to parliamentary oversight in the 21st century.
David Stefanelly (Mon,) studied this question.