France’s eight main labour unions went on the warpath in mid-January this year, only to be joined by a much wider section of the public, including students and pensioners, in March. The situation worsened on 16 March, when Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne triggered Article 49.3 of the French Constitution. By this action, a bill which, among other measures, raised the official minimum pension age from 61 to 64 for women and from 62 to 64 for men, was railroaded through, but without the benefit of the required majority vote in the Assemblée Nationale- the lower chamber of parliament. The bill had earlier been passed by the conservative-dominated upper chamber, the Sénat, on 9 March, with 201 votes in favour to 115 against. The government survived an ensuing no-confidence motion (motion de censure) on 20 March, by a slim majority of nine votes, thereby allowing the bill to be adopted into law. The law will require workers to hold down 43 years of employment before they are entitled to a full pension under the new system. The transition to a new pension age is to be achieved in stages, rising by three months each year from September 2023 onwards, until implementation is completed in 2030. Article 49.3 has been invoked on over ninety previous occasions during France’s Fifth Republic (from 1958 onwards), allowing the executive branch of government to circumvent a likely vote of dissent in either chamber of parliament, especially when it lacks an absolute parliamentary majority. The bill that is being introduced under this provision can still be blocked by a vote of no confidence, provided it is tabled within 24 hours and signed by at least 10 per cent (or 58) of all members of parliament.
The French public have never been reticent about displaying their dissatisfaction with unpopular government policies. Most noticeably in recent days, garbage collectors have gone on strike, leading to pileups of rubbish in Paris, Lyon and other major French cities. Disruptive rolling strikes in the energy and transportation sectors have interrupted public transport services and caused fuel shortages and power cuts. Members of the public have joined in solidarity and taken part in spontaneous demonstrations throughout France. Public gatherings of protest can, however, turn violent on occasion, particularly in response to heavy-handed police tactics, which often involves the use of batons, stun guns, tear gas, and water cannons. Barricades, road blocks, missiles (rocks, bottles, Molotov cocktails, etc), fireworks, smoke bombs, and deliberate fires are all part of the eclectic public armamentarium, and have been resorted to in various locations. A particularly newsworthy item from the nationwide protests on 23 March was the setting on fire of the iconic wooden door of Bordeaux’s Hotel de Ville. Another less noteworthy consequence of the protests was the abrupt postponement by the French authorities of King Charles III’s impending state visit to the nation.
Emmanuel Macron is no stranger to mass public dissent, having had to contend with the gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) protests, from 17 November 2018 onwards, which were initiated in response to a proposed carbon tax on diesel and petrol but gained momentum and carried on into 2019. The continued unrest was driven by a wider discontent over growing economic inequality and the seeming indifference of the political elites in France, even after the unpopular tax was itself cancelled on 5 December that year. Similar concerns continue to resonate well into 2023.
Macron’s actions should not come as a surprise, since he had an electoral mandate for pension reform, as part of large cuts in public spending to help reinvigorate the underperforming French economy. His earlier attempt at reform, in the form of a universal points-based pension system that was beneficial to high earners, had to be abandoned in March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Macron originally sought a retirement age of 65, which was lowered to 64 under pressure from his Prime Minister and other colleagues. France currently has the lowest retirement age in Western Europe, well below the average, and the pressures of an aging population may well justify some pre-emptive action. But the French have become accustomed to generous social welfare provisions, ever since Leon Blum’s Popular Front government introduced a radical socialist programme, starting with the Matignon Agreement on 8 June 1936, and there is widespread support for France’s redistributive, publicly-funded, pay-as-you go pension system, accompamied by a strong desire to uphold the status quo.
Whatever the merits and demerits of raising the minimum pension age in France, there can be little doubt that the recent legislation has been a public relations disaster for President Macron. Elements from across the political divide have united in their condemnation of the invocation of Article 49.3, an overtly anti-democratic, and yet legitimate, constitutional tool. It must be noted that the law is targeting an anticipated, rather than actual, pension deficit. The 17.7 billion euros in additional annual contributionsthat will be generated by a delayed retirement age and an extended pay-in period could potentially be sourced by more socially acceptable alternatives. Furthermore, Macron remains a particularly divisive figure in France, being seen as a friend of the wealthy and considered out of touch with, and lacking empathy for, the masses. While he stands firm, poised to get his reforms through, he may have prejudiced his political future by his attempts at doing away with the perks his fellow citizens so cherish. Maybe his lack of popularity doesn’t matter too much as far as Macron is concerned, given that his term of office runs all the way through to 2027, after which he is constitutionally barred from standing for re-election.
Ashis Banerjee