Opinion: with more protests planned for next week, it's clear that a political impasse has been reached so which side will give way first?
By Ciarán Crowley, Université de Lille
On Tuesday last, France saw its tenth day of nationwide strikes since the start of the year, ostensibly due to the government's decision to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. More broadly, the current unrest can be seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back (la goutte d’eau qui fait déborder le vase) for Emmanuel Macron's long-term detractors. This would include the left, unions and certain public, semi-state and transport workers, as well as some low-paid workers, middle-class urbanites, anarchists, anti-Capitalists (les black blocs) and university-going youth (principally-though not exclusively-with left-wing sympathies).
For the rest of the public watching on, a mood of resignation has fallen in a country long accustomed to violent street protests. While some polls have said as much as 70% of people are against the pension reform as it stands, only 21% think Macron will give in and abandon his reform.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ News, report on this week's protests against pension reform plans in France
Poor government communication
The government has consistently (if unconvincingly) argued that pension reform is necessary from an economic point of view, but its opponents argue it is a cruel political choice that hits the poor and working people the hardest. When the government increased the military budget by €100 billion in January (to total €400 billion for the years 2024-2030), its arguments that the pension reform might make savings of €12 billion per year by 2030 (and effectively cancel the deficit in the pension system) were greeted with derision.
His political opponents in the French parliament countered that Macron’s decision was not based on sound economics at all. In reality, it was merely a political decision to shift government spending away from the poor and hard-working towards other priorities, such as defence. Timing is everything in politics and so is perception. Macron has ignored both in pressing ahead with his reform and even his wealthy supporters have admitted as much.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, Irish journalist in Paris Sharon Gaffney reports on the going protests in the French capital
'Cui bono?’: who benefits? Certainly not the workers who pay into the country's ‘pay-as-you-go’ system. Under the new reform, they will be legally required to work two more years in order to qualify for a retirement pension in France. Respected French economist Thomas Piketty has criticised the reform, arguing that all the savings made by the current reform will almost exclusively be felt by those with the least and that the richest have been spared by such reforms.
A detached observer might then wonder what was Macron thinking and why now in particular?. Cynics might ask ‘does he even care?’. Under Article 6 of the French constitution, Macron can’t run for a third consecutive term in the 2027 Presidential elections. Après moi, le déluge, as King Louis XV once quipped.
Presidential discretion or diktat?
How we make the law is important. Laws in Western democracies are overwhelming made by parliaments, which are elected by the people. This method is employed as it’s seen as the most democratically legitimate system we have come up with (as imperfect as it sometimes may be!).
With Macron seeing the writing on the wall and facing the increasing possibility that the Parliament was not going to vote for his flagship reform, he decided to take a dangerous political gamble and use Article 49.3 of the French constitution to push his reform through.
From Channel 4 News, is Macron listening to the concerns of protestors?
Yes, such a choice is legal: the president asks the prime minister to ‘engage the government’s responsibility’ to pass a money bill, but, and crucially, without the parliament voting on the bill. But whether such a method of making a law is democratically legitimate or optimal is open to debate and has been questioned by constitutionalists, such as Professor Jean-Philippe Derosier of Université de Lille.
Article 49.3 is relatively arcane and forcing through pension reforms without Parliament’s approval resembles a presidential diktat to many in France. Some polls suggested that nearly 80% of the French public opposed the use of Article 49.3 before Macron even used it. Should the president have ignored such widespread public scepticism? Whilst Macron can say pension reform was in his election manifesto, politicians should also accept that public opinion can change over time.
Why did he not take a leaf from Charles de Gaulle's leadership and bring the French parliament together in order to renew negotiations on pension reform and engage in creating cross-party legislation? In the US, Lyndon B. Johnson masterfully used such ‘consensus building’ to brilliant effect in passing historic legislation such as the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965 in a nation bitterly divided by the Vietnam War abroad and the culture wars at home. 'Let us reason together', the charismatic Texan used to whisper in the ears of sceptical Senators as persuasion was used to overpower his rivals’ misgivings. It is doubtful, however, if Macron has the personality to engage in the same way and in a very different era with an opposition that cannot abide him.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's The Business, Simon Kuper from the Financial Times in Paris on why those who are better paid should work longer than those who are lower paid
What's next?
A political impasse has been reached. Which side will give way first? While Macron will hope the protests lose steam, his opponents have taken an appeal to France's highest court, le Conseil constitutionnel, where they will seek to overturn all, or parts, of the pension reform. A decision of the court is expected in April. A referendum (Référendum d'initiative partagée or ‘RIP’) could be a last resort for Macron’s opponents, though five million voters would have to sign a petition in support of it.
The next day of protests has already been declared for next Thursday, April 6th. The risk for both camps is that the protests turn too violent as police patience wears thin (the police have not been spared by the reform either and will have to work two years longer until 54) and some protestors become increasingly radicalised when they realise the president will not step back and repeal his reform.
The events in France neatly exhibit why we can’t abide politics and why we can’t look away either. We simply do no know what will happen next. What is certain is that life goes on and that there will always be many people left unhappy with the status quo.
Ciarán Crowley is a law lecturer (professeur certifié affecté dans l'enseignement supérieur) at Université de Lille France
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
