So, the French President Emmanuel Macron has been true to his word. In his election manifesto when he was voted to a second term, he had stated unambiguously that he would seek to increase the statutory minimum age for retirement in France to 64 from the current 62. Macron tried doing it the traditional way, that is to get his Prime Minister and Government to introduce a bill in the French parliament. There was only one problem: Macron lacked a majority in parliament. So, while the bill passed muster in the upper house i.e. the Senate, it ran the risk of failing in the lower house i.e. the National Assembly. Once that became obvious, Macron used the “nuclear option”, that is Article 49.3 of the French Constitution to push the bill without a vote on the floor of the National Assembly. The bill to increase the statutory minimum retirement age to 64 from the current 62 is thus law in France as of yesterday. This is no mean achievement considering past Presidents in France have failed abysmally in reforming the pension system.
So, why this hullabaloo about the increase of retirement age in France. Well, for one thing, the cost of maintaining the current generous system of pension in France is proving to be unsustainable for the state. Rather than increase taxes or borrow more money, the easiest and logical way to do this is to increase the retirement age so that those savings can help share the cost burden. But why do the French oppose the logical extension of the retirement age especially since everyone lives longer these days. Mind you, it is true that the French retire earlier than others in Europe. One reason is the French concept of the welfare state and the idea that workers’ rights have been won over time. The idea of work-life balance is also taken seriously by the French. In 2016, there was a report which said it was illegal in France to check work related e-mails over the weekend. There are also historical reasons. The French President Mitterrand in 1981, against trends in Europe, decreased the retirement age from 65 to 60 and increased annual vacation for all in France. The other reason has to do with those who begin work as early as 20 years. The idea that a garbage collector or a waiter or a construction worker has to work more than 44 years to get full pension at say 64 years is anathema to the French notion of liberty, equality and fraternity.
The French also love taking to the streets to voice their protests. Once a cause is found, people will show solidarity and express support especially for the underdog. The weather plays its part too; spring is beautiful in France and ideal for street protests. Small wonder, millions have descended on the streets to say “no” to the increase in retirement age.
So, where does one go from here? Legally speaking, the minimum age has been raised to 64 by the Government of Macron. If the opposition parties wish, they can bring a no-confidence motion against the Government. It is doubtful if that will succeed. But if it does, President Macron will simply dissolve the current government led by his PM and appoint another one in its place.
President Macron cannot stand for a third term as President. He thus wants the pension reform to be his lasting legacy. This is significant because past Presidents have been spectacularly unsuccessful in carrying out this reform. From this perspective, he needs to be commended for taking this political risk. It does put him in the category of a few political leaders who are willing to demonstrate strength of purpose and courage of conviction.
Will the street protests continue in France thereby weakening Macron politically? That will depend on many factors, including the ability of the opposition parties (which include strange bedfellows like the far-right and the extreme left) to forge a common front and take the fight to the streets. But perhaps, the weather will also play its part!!
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 