In France, the Emmanuel Macron administration has been facing a new challenge in recent weeks after the “yellow vest” protests that swept the country in 2018. The controversial pension reform, which has been on the agenda for a long time, is causing protests across the country. Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin announced that more than 850 demonstrators had been detained over demonstrations against the reform. Moreover, daily life in the country has been paralyzed by union-led strikes and slowdowns.
Before making a detailed assessment of the controversial decision, which the Macron administration passed directly without the final approval of the National Assembly, it is necessary to look at the content of this reform briefly. According to the reform, which received the support of the Senate on March 9, the retirement age, currently 62 in France, will increase by three months every year to 64 by Sept. 1. Thus, the retirement age will be 64 years in 2030. In addition, starting in 2027, even if an employee reaches retirement age, they will have to contribute for 43 years to receive the full pension. In brief, with the pension reform, the French will work more to retire.
Regarding critical details about the pension reform, Macron originally stated that he would arrange to raise the retirement age if elected president during the presidential campaign in 2017. However, he could not implement the pension reform to avoid further pressure due to the yellow vest protestors that occupied the streets to protest fuel prices and living costs after he took office. He then attempted to reform pensions in 2020 but could not continue due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Had Macron tried to pass the pension reform in the shadow of the crises in his first term, it would have been more difficult for him to be reelected. Under these circumstances, Macron was reelected president last year and wanted to implement the pension reform as soon as possible before his second and final term ends in 2027. In this context, the government revived the pension reform issue at the beginning of this year, and eventually, Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne announced the pension reform. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the government’s pension reform is a new and surprising decision.
It has also been discussed that the retirement age in France is relatively low compared to other Western European countries. Indeed, in the countries like Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the lowest retirement age is 65. Moreover, some countries plan to increase the retirement age by at least one year in the next 10 years. Considering that the average retirement ages in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries are 65 for men and 63 for women, it can be easily stated that the pension reform is a late regulation for the future of the French economy and the sustainability of the welfare in the country.
Two reasons
There are two reasons why the French people are protesting the pension reform even though it is a long-awaited and necessary regulation. First, they do not want to work for two years more when they can retire earlier with a rational approach. In many surveys, it is seen that this situation is clearly at the forefront among the reasons for the people’s opposition to pension reform. The second reason they oppose pension reform is how the decision was made. Under normal circumstances, both houses of the French Parliament have approved the bills in France. However, Article 49/3 of the Constitution enables the government to push a bill regarding financial and social security issues through the National Assembly without a vote. Therefore, Borne used her unique authority to implement the pension reform bill without the deputies’ approval shortly before the planned vote in the National Assembly.
The Macron-Borne duo followed such a path because their party, Renaissance (LREM), lost the absolute majority in the 577-seat National Assembly in the general election held in June last year. In other words, if the bill had been put to the vote in Parliament, it would most likely not have been accepted. To avoid such a result, the government passed the pension reform using Article 49/3. Yet opposition parties, union leaders and protesters are reacting to the government ignoring the people’s will by choosing the shortcut on the retirement issue that concerns the entire society. Moreover, the government also used Article 49/3 for the 2023 budget bill last year. In this respect, the government’s frequent use of this authority in the previous period harms the principle of separation of powers, renders the legislature ineffective, and weakens democratic debates and consultation mechanisms.
Police brutality
In addition, the French police’s usage of excessive force should not be overlooked. Like in the yellow vest protests, the French police used heavy violence against the people to suppress the demonstrations. So, as it can be understood from the images published by the media and the videos shared by the protesters on social media, the French police brutally interfered with the civilians in front of them with batons, water cannons and tear gas, as if they were in a war. Indeed, international organizations, including the Council of Europe, criticized the usage of excessive force during street protests. At this point, it should be noted that in a country like France, which made a great “revolution” in the past with strong popular resistance, the fact that the police react so harshly to the citizens at every chance they get is an essential threat to the normalization of police violence in the country.
Finally, the protests against the pension reform will undoubtedly remain on the agenda for a long time. However, Macron and Borne defend the pension reform to the fullest. Moreover, the reform plan has already become law. Therefore, the government can’t take a step back from now on. For this reason, the French have to accept the pension reform, but while doing so, they will continue to occupy the streets to vomit their anger on the administration.
