Ahead of the nationwide strike action and demonstrations called for January 19th in protest at President Emmanuel Macron’s reform of the French pensions system, raising the age of retirement on full pension rights from 62 to 64, the prime minister’s office sent word out to members of the centre-right government and its allies to tone down their public statements. There was to be nothing said in the media that could be interpreted as being yet another provocation by an executive determined to push through a reform which opinion surveys report is opposed by a majority of the population.
Illustrating the change of tone was labour minister Olivier Dussopt who, in an interview with French daily Le Parisien at the beginning of the year, declared that “the French are more reasonable than certain union leaders”. But in a later interview, this time with radio station France Inter on January 15th, he recognised that the trades unions had “a legitimacy” to call for strike action and demonstrations against the proposed legislation.
Listening only to himself, Emmanuel Macron chose very early on to bypass discussions with union leaders who, during the president’s first term in office, were described by some of his entourage as constituting “blocking” forces. “Emmanuel Macron doesn’t know what trade unionism is,” recently commented Philippe Martinez, head of the CGT, one of the country’s main, and most militant, cross-trades unions. “For him, we’re a pain in the neck.” That view was echoed by Laurent Berger, secretary general of the CFDT, the largest French union. “For six years, there has been no construction of true social democracy,” he commented, referring to Macron’s six years in power.
Macron, unlike his predecessor François Hollande, who maintained a form of social dialogue by consulting with the CFDT (however illusory that was, and to the exclusion of all other unions), has always considered that it is for the government alone to define and elaborate social policies. Pursuing an egotistic style of a one-to-one conversation with the population at large, he has effectively kept at a distance all the organisations that represent civil society.
That is the unanimous view of all the representatives of trades unions and associations who took part in discussions with the government on the 2017 labour law reforms, on the 2018 “asylum and immigration” legislation, the reform, also in 2018, of the state-owned French railways company, the SNCF, and that, in 2021, of the unemployment benefits system, as well as the now hotly contested reform of the pensions system. They have regularly denounced what they view as the deaf ear of successive Macron governments which, while accepting to meet them around a table, have taken little heed of their opinions.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
While Macron has succeeded on several occasions in forcing through his programme of reforms, his go-alone style has also damaged numerous safeguards that existed in the framework of social dialogue. It led, like a boomerang, to the so-called “yellow vest” movement, an unstructured, leaderless, eclectic social revolt that swept the country, beginning in late 2018, composed notably of those on low incomes who felt unrepresented and ignored by those in power. “The experience of the yellow vests demonstrated that the intermediary bodies [editor’s note, such as trade unions] were, finally, very useful in serving as cushions for French emotions,” commented one of Macron’s entourage, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
However, despite that “experience”, very little has changed in either the form or substance of the president’s approach. While Macron attempted to renew relations with union leaders during the Covid-19 pandemic, and subsequently with the creation in 2022 of a consultative council, the CNR, to which diverse political, union and association representatives were invited to debate policies towards major societal issues, such rare initiatives came up against a problem that is as inextricable as it is personal; namely, when the head of state is convinced he is right about everything, it is difficult – not to say impossible – to engage in a productive exchange.
The plain facts of the current situation demonstrate this. As in his first election in 2017, Macron was re-elected in 2022 in a final round of voting where the choice was between him and the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, when many opposed to him voted (while others abstained) to keep Le Pen out. His party failed to gain a majority in the ensuing parliamentary elections, leading to the immoderate use of a decree that allows his government to force legislation through parliament without its approval, and now he is determined to push through his reform of the pensions system to which a majority of the French population, according to opinion surveys, are, like all the trade unions, opposed.
People are more in a state of weariness than anger
According to a report this week by France Inter, citing Elysée Palace sources, the president, regularly consulting over the pensions reform with his advisors, ministers, politicians he is close to and what were described as “evening visitors”, is convinced that the majority of the French public are against strikes that threaten to block the country and does not believe in a “victory for irresponsibility”. He apparently does not place his own in question, and is quoted as telling a meeting of his ministers in early January that the government must not give in to the “professionals of misfortune”.
Macron and his entourage have such faith in the power of rhetoric that they obstinately talk of the “justice” of the pension reforms, while people very well understand that there is nothing “just” about increasing the age of retirement. Some among his Renaissance party, like recently the Member of Parliament Karl Olive, insist that Macron was “elected on a project for pensions reform”, which quite plainly runs counter to the truth.
The distortion of the facts, and the exhaustion of the real sense of words, makes any democratic debate a perilous exercise. “People are more in a state of weariness than anger,” declared government spokesman Olivier Véran. Indeed, it would be difficult for them to feel otherwise given that ministers repeat, in a manner of certainty, that the pensions reform will be adopted in parliament whatever the opposition.
Members of the centre-right government have rejoiced in finding an alliance over the reform with the conservative Les Républicains opposition party. They have praised a reform that they claim is good for their electorate, which includes the managerial class, the retired, and business leaders, and they believe that once the opening storm of protests has subsided it will be business as usual.
If the pensions reform is adopted in its current form despite a strong mobilisation of those opposed to it, Macron and his government will have won a parliamentary victory, but at what cost? What might be the consequences of a resigned, even demoralised society that sees no social democracy or positive perspectives, and what form will opposition and anger towards the government take if those demonstrating in the streets are ignored to such an extent?
“In any case, if there is not an enormous mobilisation in the streets, the resentment will be expressed differently,” commented CFDT union leader Laurent Berger. “And it will be expressed one day or another in the ballot box, and notably on the side of the far-right.” Berger, who is far from a firebrand leftist, has for some while raised the alarm over Macron’s non-inclusive style of governing.
It is an exercise of power which was described by French sociologist Michel Wieviorka as allowing “the logics of friends and enemies and the sad emotions already at work in contemporary France to conquer vast territories”. Among the president’s entourage, few have taken up that issue. It is only after long conversations that some will admit, almost in a whisper, that there might be a time bomb waiting in the ballot box. But none of them demonstrate they have heeded the lesson of that.
-------------------------
- The original French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Graham Tearse