UPDATE Wednesday July 19th: Following the publication of this article, General Pierre de Villiers on Wednesday resigned from his position as chief-of-staff of France's armed forces. He was replaced by General François Lecointre. Announcing his resignation, Pierre de Villiers said he took the decision because the announced cuts in military spending made him “no longer in a position to ensure the continuity of the model of the armed forces which I believe in”.
-------------------------
Taken at face value, the emotive political reaction to the confrontation between General Pierre de Villiers and President Emmanuel Macron would seem to be the revelation of a shift in French society.
It would appear to prove that the country, contrary to the 1970s when the Left was on the rise, is now unanimous in its opinion about the military. It would also illustrate that the union of both the Right and the Left in defending a senior officer hides profound and paradoxical evolutions: behind the support leant to the army chief-of-staff, and the widespread criticism of the president, lie tectonic movements.
We know that the Left has turned upside down its rhetoric and practices concerning the military, ahat has been amply demonstrated. Once opposed to nuclear weapons and inclined to protect social spending rather than that on defence, the Left has changed tack with the passing of time. Alexis Corbière, Member of Parliament for the radical-left La France Insoumise party, gave an eloquent example of this when, on July 15th, he Tweeted a message about the current row over defence budget cuts saying, “the consequences for the army are intolerable”. The common struggle now, it seems, is over education, culture, the environment …and the military.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
Meanwhile, we discover that the Right has come a long way on a question which it regarded as fundamental, namely that of authority. The mantra of the Right has for long been “a boss is there to boss” (a phrase first coined by former conservative leader Jacques Chirac, in an interview with French daily Le Figaro in 1992), and has hushed open divisions within its camp with the imperative of “silence among the ranks”. But now it disapproves of Emmanuel Macron’s decision to apply the same discipline in an upper-cut reproach to his army chief-of-staff.
The Right has loudly applauded the general for his nuanced idea of authority, as expressed in his missive to young army recruits. Pierre de Villiers wrote: “Confidence is a living virtue. It requires proof. It must be nourished day after day, to produce active obedience, there where adhesion wins against constraint.” Well now, to adhere rather than to be constrained! That sounds much more like the rebellious Left represented by the former socialist government’s justice minister Christiane Taubira rather than the rightwing supporters of minimum jail sentences. But if the outspoken deputy leader of the conservative Les Républicains party, Éric Ciotti, approves it...well, then there really is a revolution underway.
With a Left that has become enamoured with the military, and a Right that no longer confuses adhesion with laxness, the debate over the Macron-de Villiers affair would be captivating if it weren’t for the fact that it is a rather automatic one, and which boils down to a far more basic concept, namely that a political opposition is all about opposing, even at the expense of oneself.
But another element has escaped political commentators, one that is much less anecdotal. Beyond the military issue, the “dialogue” between senior manager Pierre de Villiers and the CEO of the start-up company France prefigures, right up to the announcement of its conclusion, one of the major consequences of the forthcoming reform of French labour laws.
Let’s take a closer look at the cast and synopsis of the scene that unrolls before our eyes. A senior manager is unhappy with the means that he is given to work with. He asks for an increase, in the spirit of a negotiation that takes in the reality of the state of the company. This would be a negotiation that is not ruled over by outside regulations, such as the law, but handed to the people in the field, in a wonderful equality between a CEO and his subordinate.
However, Emmanuel Macron’s reaction was summed up in his single retort of, “I am your boss”. Why would things be any different when negotiations on pay and working hours are held, as the new labour law reform intends them to be, on a company-by-company basis (and not by sector of activity as at present)? Would the “boss” be any less a boss when he or she runs a company?
There are, therefore, two opposing sides in this affair. There is that of the party seeking what it perceives as a just allowance, which could be a trade union official capable of saying what the general said, which was, “I could no longer look my lads in the eyes if our means are further reduced” – which for the union representative might be “I could no longer look members in the eyes if our wages are further reduced”. On the other side is the company boss, who would counter with an argument about the wider interest and the future of the group.
Just how would this dispute end? Will the general be invited to go elsewhere and become replaced, as Macron himself has indicated: “If something puts me in opposition to the chief-of-staff” – which could be read as “personnel” – “the chief-of-staff changes” (read, “is sacked”).
But no, not at all, this is all wrong! You have there a pessimistic and contentious vision of the coming labour law reforms. After all, the government spokesman himself, Christophe Castaner, on Monday announced an epilogue to the Macron-de Villiers disagreement that is steeped in the spirit of employer-employee dialogue, in line with the soothing approach of company-by-company negotiations, insisting: “They will take a decision together.”
Oh yes, "together". Macron and de Villiers! That is so convincing it forces a smile.
-------------------------
- The French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Graham Tearse