France has witnessed fierce resistance to Macron’s pension reform bill since its introduction in the National Assembly, the lower house of France’s bicameral Parliament, in January of this year. Such opposition has made headlines internationally, with titles such as “Paris is burning” or “France is on fire” being featured repeatedly.
An Ill-informed Narrative in the Media
The coverage of the protests, strikes, and in some cases, even riots, have disproportionately centered on the “violence” of the protestors, with only occasional mention of the police brutality that these protestors face. For example, the burning of a town hall in Bordeaux or that of La Rotonde, a restaurant in Paris known for serving President Macron, was featured in a number of media outlets internationally.
This is not to dismiss the violence of some protestors, mainly those known as the “black blocs”, only to emphasize that the overwhelming majority of protests in France have been peaceful. Yet there is a continual tendency to depict the French as “violent” or even “lazy” due to their refusal to accept Macron’s pension reform.
Indeed, in much of the recent coverage of France, especially when written by those who appear to lack advanced knowledge of the country, there is almost a sense of bewilderment as to how the French could be so adamant in their opposition. This angle not only reinforces harmful stereotypes about the French, which have been repeatedly debunked, but more importantly, they distract from the crux of concerns over Macron’s pension reform.
There is a continual tendency to depict the French as “violent” or even “lazy” due to their refusal to accept Macron’s pension reform.
This stems from the fact that the reform was forced through parliament using article 49.3 of the Constitution, which allows a bill to be considered as “adopted” by the National Assembly if a vote of no confidence in the government (“motion de censure”) does not receive the necessary number of votes. In this case, the motion failed by only 9 votes.
While the use of article 49.3 has often been controversial, its use comes at a particularly contentious time. A clear majority of French citizens are against the reform, with most surveys putting the number at around 70%. In a wider context of inflation, bank bailouts, and the “super profits” of fossil fuel companies, Macron’s insistence on the immediate need for pension reform – not to mention his condescension in doing so – is a particularly difficult pill to swallow for many.
However, to understand why this is only the most recent manifestation of France’s “democratic deficit”, we need to understand the country’s political system in more detail. Although democratic in many respects – elections are free and fair, civil liberties are protected, and political participation is relatively widespread – France’s institutions remain highly unequal.
Why French Institutions Are Different
Contrary to most Western democracies, the bulk of political power is contained within the presidency in France. This is partly the result of the instability that took place during the country’s Fourth Republic. The parliament’s dominance over the presidency meant that the coalition governments that formed often lacked direction. This was exacerbated by the Fourth Republic’s proportional style of voting – as compared to today’s two-round system – that rarely gave rise to clear majorities.
Despite their volatility, the institutions of the Fourth Republic were more democratic than those of today. However, when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958, he ensured that France’s new constitution would give the president the power to silence any parliamentary squabbling of the kind that had occurred under the Fourth Republic.
This was done in a number of ways: first, the president – rather than parliament – appoints the country’s prime minister, giving him almost exclusive control over both the presidency and the government. Secondly, the president is able to dissolve the National Assembly and call for new elections in the hope of attaining a majority in parliament, although this is never guaranteed.
When Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958, he ensured that France’s new constitution would give the president the power to silence any parliamentary squabbling.
Thirdly, although not an exclusive power of the president, the government can evoke article 49.3 of the constitution in order to circumvent a parliamentary vote, which is how Macron was able to force through his pension reform. It is also extremely difficult to revoke the President of his powers, sheltering him from broader measures of accountability.
The Fifth Republic’s institutions have thus allowed the president and his supporters to refuse any kind of dialogue or compromise with the opposition, often bypassing them completely. This has naturally limited the potential for a “consensus culture” of the kind found in Germany or the Netherlands to form in France, which was particularly apparent in Macron’s refusal to meet with unions.
Limited Opportunities for Dissent
Although France has long been known for its strikes, it is rarely acknowledged internationally that the country’s institutions offer few alternative means of expressing opposition than “through the streets”. Although there are both historical and cultural explanations for this tendency to demonstrate, institutional limitations also make protest the “last line of defense” for many, which is why their restriction puts the country’s democracy increasingly at risk.
Unfortunately, France’s top-down political structure is mirrored in many of its other institutions. Higher education is divided into Grandes Écoles – seemingly “reserved” for France’s future elite – and universities. This distinction between students is later translated into pyramidal hierarchies in the workplace that, similar to France’s political institutions, offer few integrated pathways of expressing disagreement.
Although France has long been known for its strikes, the country’s institutions offer few alternative means of expressing opposition than “through the streets”.
In a country where background and connections are of particular importance – although by no means an isolated case in Europe – social mobility can often feel constrained. Such structures make members of the French elite disconnected from the general public, with France’s tendency towards centralization only making matters worse.
This is why Macron’s call on the French to “sacrifice themselves” for his pension reform falls on deaf ears. His attempts at reconciliation will not advance by much unless he recognizes some of the most pressing concerns for the French public that his reform represents.
The Wider Implications of Macron’s Pension Reform
The first is, most obviously, the threat to individuals’ livelihoods. In a year of economic downturn, where inflation remains stubbornly high, cuts to the welfare state can only be perceived as a further decline in the standard of living for many. The pension reform is also largely unnecessary, at least at the present time, which only makes matters worse.
According to the most recent report by the Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites (COR), an independent government body tasked with reviewing France’s pension system, which is a pay-as-you-go system funded by workers’ contributions, the current system is likely to be in deficit on average over the next 25 years.
However, the extent of this deficit is not to be exaggerated, as the COR report itself makes clear. Although the government has routinely emphasized the growing number of retirees supported by a shrinking workforce, this is not necessarily a problem depending on how trends in productivity and life expectancy develop.
In a year of economic downturn, cuts to the welfare state can only be perceived as a further decline in the standard of living for many.
In the majority of long-term scenarios presented by the COR report, the French pension system should slowly return into balance in the decades following 2032. Although some modification might be needed to tackle the short-term deficit, Macron’s pension reform was far from urgent, especially as it will exacerbate inequality – another central concern of the French.
As critics have pointed out, the reform does not make an exception for those with physically demanding jobs who often face lower life expectancy. Furthermore, although those who began working at an earlier age are allowed to retire before the minimum retirement age, which will progressively rise to 64 years, the majority of them will still have to work the mandatory 43 years, if not more.
The Future of France
Environmental degradation should also be added to the list of grievances, as many young French protestors recognized in their now famous chant Retraite, climat, même combat (“Retirement, climate, same fight”). In addition to the environmental impact of work itself – which will be exacerbated if individuals have to work for longer – pension funds are often invested in projects that contribute to climate change.
The use of article 49.3 in passing Macron’s pension reform, combined with France’s unequal institutions, has perhaps an even more sinister implication, however. By capitalizing on the public’s lack of confidence not only in the current administration but in the democratic process itself, the far-right is likely to extend its sway over voters.
The far-right – headed by Marine Le Pen – has steadily gained ground in elections over the past years. In the 2022 presidential election – which saw an abstention rate of approximately 28% – Macron won about 59% of the vote compared to Le Pen’s 41%, the highest margin the far-right has ever captured in a presidential election in France. The National Rally, Le Pen’s party, also won 89 seats in the most recent legislative elections, up from six during the country’s last elections.
By capitalizing on the public’s lack of confidence not only in the current administration but in the democratic process itself, the far-right is likely to extend its sway over voters.
At a time when Macron is also attempting to forge a fortified path for Europe on the global stage, his antidemocratic behavior at home calls into question the prospect of a sovereign, united, and democratic Europe internationally, as protestors to the French President’s recent speech in the Hague were quick to point out.
A sense of powerlessness has thus overcome France, although it is Macron himself – increasingly isolated both nationally and internationally – who might be left to his own devices. In his wake, it would seem that the future of France is highly uncertain.