Annex
Resolution 61 of 2026, and the ground on which the party pages name persons
Resolution 61 of 2026
The interim National Council adopted Resolution 61 of 2026, on the naming of persons in the official record, on 14 May 2026. The Humanist Socialist Party moved it. Sixty-eight members voted in favour, nineteen against and thirteen abstained, of one hundred.
Paragraph 1 provides that official documents of the Republic which record its history name no individual person as the author, the originator or the holder of a decision of state, and refer instead to the organ that acted.
Paragraph 2 lists the documents to which this applies: the official history maintained by the Office of Constitutional Revision, the summary and the register published under Articles 314 to 316, the booklet distributed to every dwelling under Article 316, the plaques, inscriptions and permanent signage of the organs, and material prepared for schools by the education committees.
Paragraph 3 provides that where an individual name is necessary to establish a fact, the name is recorded in the annexes and in the archives, and that both are public and free of charge. Paragraph 4 provides that the resolution binds no court, no audit report, no inquiry, no criminal record, no communal register, no organ of the press and no private or scholarly publication.
Paragraph 5 provides that a name already given to a place, a station, a street or a building is not removed, those names being decided by the commune under Article 141.
The grounds stated on each side
Grounds stated by the movers
The Directorate governed for twenty years without publishing its plans, and it was dissolved as an organ, by procedure, over two years. No person was tried and no person was held answerable for it.
The movers held that this outcome was correct and that the official record should follow it. Their stated reason was that a history written around persons produces a person to be honoured and a person to be blamed, and that a state able to produce the second is able to produce the first.
Grounds stated against
The Democratic Socialists and the Movement for Democracy opposed the resolution. The Democratic Socialists held that a responsibility recorded without a name is not a responsibility assumed, and that the Cortius Report can be read only because it states who received it and did not publish it.
The Movement for Democracy held that the resolution instructs an office of the state on the manner of writing history, and that the instruction is objectionable whatever it directs. Of the National Traditionalists, four voted against and two abstained.
Effect on the existing texts
The official history was revised over one year, and the text now in use names no person after 1890. Two hundred and forty names were moved to the annexes. The Office of Constitutional Revision recorded that no fact was removed from the history and that each annex is linked from every paragraph it supports.
Relation to the wider commitment
Resolution 61 is the first of the three domestic limbs of the commitment that the press calls the complete democratic preservation project. That commitment appears in a joint standing decision of four parties registered on 3 February 2026 and in a resolution of the interim National Council of 9 March 2026.
No article of the Constitution and no organic law uses the phrase. Neither decision creates a power, and both are drafted as undertakings that the signatories accept against themselves.
Why the party pages name persons
A party page states who leads a list and who stands for it in a district. That is a fact within paragraph 3, and this page is the annex in which the register records it. Article 120(5) gives each voter a preference among the candidates of a list, and the order the voters express displaces the order the list fixed for itself.
A voter who does not know which candidates stand cannot exercise that preference. The names are therefore published on the party pages themselves and repeated in no other part of the register.
Paragraph 1 reaches decisions of state and the persons who took them. It does not reach a candidacy, which is a fact about a choice that has yet to be made. The register applies the same reading to the interview page, where each answer is attributed to the office-holder who gave it, since an answer without an attribution cannot be checked against the office that gave it.
The resolution states a rule for the record of the Republic. It states no rule for what a party may publish about itself, and paragraph 4 puts private publication outside its scope entirely. Where a party page reports a decision of state, it names the organ that took the decision and no person.
The stated purpose
The movers described the resolution as a symbolic measure directed against government organised around a single named figure, of the kind practised by parties of the far right in Europe and by governing parties elsewhere. The resolution attaches no penalty to a breach and confers no power on any organ.
The objection recorded by the Democratic Socialists in the same debate is that a name moved to an annex is a name removed in practice if nobody opens the annex, and that the Office of Constitutional Revision can then state that it removed no fact.