The French have taken to the streets, and some foreign commentators are having the vapours. Last week, Foreign Policy suggested that President Emmanuel Macron’s pension reform "has sparked one of the most serious crises in French history". Nicholas Vinocur wrote in Politico that “anyone looking at France right now could be forgiven for thinking the country was on the edge of a revolution”.
Please. While the current crisis has worrisome elements, for the moment it still fits squarely into a pattern that has prevailed in French political life for decades. Protestors against Macron’s raising of the retirement age from 62 to 64 have staged large-scale strikes and demonstrations and engaged in some theatrical violence, starting fires in the streets, and clashing with police. But very much the same thing happened in 2016, when the administration of François Hollande introduced labour law reforms, making it easier for companies to lay off workers. It was the same story in 2010, when the administration of Nicolas Sarkozy raised the retirement age from 60 to 62. And also in 2006, when the administration of Jacques Chirac eliminated certain labour protections for young workers. And in 1995, when the Chirac administration introduced a slew of reforms, including raising the retirement age for railroad workers (then set at 55).
Each time, yes, there has been the potential for the confrontations to escalate into something greater. But there is a reason that the great sociologist Charles Tilly called one of his books The Contentious French. To a certain extent, this is simply how contemporary French politics works. In each of the cases just mentioned, the Government insisted that without reform, France would slide into fiscal disaster and economic calamity. In each, the protestors insisted that the reforms would leave France’s vaunted social security net irretrievably shattered. Both sides were in fact engaged in the classic French tactic known as the surenchère — roughly, “overbidding” — and the dire consequences they predicted failed to materialise. In some of the cases, such as in 1995, the administration retreated. In others, such as in 2016, it persevered. French life has gone on. In recent days, the numbers attending the protests have apparently diminished, and it looks more likely than not that Macron will succeed in securing the pension reform.
The contentious pattern of the past few decades can largely be explained by the structure of France’s current Fifth Republic. The republic’s founder, Charles de Gaulle, created a powerful executive that would supposedly exist high above the political fray. In theory, the president would serve as a source of national unity, bringing the people together for the common good. In practice, he has more often acted like an irritable schoolmaster, preaching to the people about what is good for them. It does not help that he is surrounded by cadres of elite technocrats from the so-called grands corps de l’état, who are generally confident that they know better than anyone else how to manage economic and social development. Indeed, for all but seven of the past 30 years, the president has been a graduate of the super-elite École Nationale d’Administration, which finally became such a lightning rod for criticism that Macron, himself a graduate, closed it in 2021.
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading" author="John Lichfield"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/03/macron-needs-to-be-more-like-thatcher/[/su_unherd_related]
Macron is the platonic ideal of this type: supremely well-educated, hyper-intelligent, arrogant, and largely tone-deaf to the concerns of his fellow citizens. At the beginning of his first term, in 2017, he boasted that he wanted to preside over France in “Jupiterian” fashion. He and his technocratic advisors convinced themselves that raising the retirement age was crucial for the fiscal health of the French state — though not all analysts agree — and have insisted on pushing the reform through, regardless of the extent of opposition.
The President’s “take your medicine” paternalism has especially rankled because of the way it collides with a widespread egalitarian sensibility that has much deeper roots in France’s republican political culture than the current constitution. Significantly, the arguments that have done the most to galvanise the current protests put less emphasis on the generalised hardship of having everyone work an additional two years, than on the unfairness of asking underpaid workers — especially women — to work extra years for the same inferior retirement benefits. In addition to women, the protests have drawn particularly large numbers in smaller, poorer provincial cities like Morlaix in Brittany, where close to a quarter of the population have turned out for some marches.
The most worrisome thing about the current crisis is not (yet) the degree of violence or the damage caused to the economy by repeated general strikes. The Fifth Republic has weathered worse crises, including the far larger strikes and protests that briefly sent President De Gaulle fleeing to a military base in Germany in the spring of 1968, as well as horrific Islamist terror attacks in 2015, and the Covid pandemic (not to mention an attempted coup d’état in 1961). The biggest danger stems from the fact that by obstinately insisting on pushing through this reform without serious consultation, Macron has thrown away whatever popularity he still enjoyed after his re-election last year and virtually guaranteed that he will not be able to achieve anything substantial in the remaining four years of his presidency. To make things even worse, he pushed through the retirement reform by using a constitutional provision that allowed him to enact a law without approval by the National Assembly, further enraging the opposition while cementing his reputation for arrogance. Younger protestors, for whom retirement remains on the distant horizon, have cited the use of this provision as a principal reason why they have turned out in large numbers.
Macron’s approval rating has not yet fallen into the single digits, as his predecessor Hollande’s did, but it is heading in that direction. Meanwhile, his own election and re-election have accelerated the decomposition of France’s two major political parties, the Socialists and the Republicans (the descendants of the Gaullists). Macron’s own party, now called Renaissance, remains essentially a personal vehicle that is unlikely to outlive its creator’s political career (he initially called it “En Marche”, and the initials “E.M.” were no coincidence). On the French political scene today, it is two figures from the extremes — Jean-Luc Mélenchon of “La France Insoumise” on the Left, and Marine Le Pen of the “Rassemblement National” on the Right — who enjoy the most consistent support. When Macron leaves office in 2027, as he must (he cannot serve more than two terms), the populist Le Pen may finally grasp the prize that she, and her father Jean-Marie, have striven for since the Eighties. In 1988, Jean-Marie received 14.4% of the first-round voting. In 2022, Marine made it into the runoff round, and got 41.45%. Après Macron, le déluge?
[su_unherd_related fttitle="Suggested reading" author="Anne-Elisabeth Moutet"]https://staging.unherd.com/2023/02/the-french-love-to-hate-brexit/[/su_unherd_related]
Perhaps, but here again, the historical record suggests some caution. France enjoys a reputation for ideological extremism, but in the 234 years since the start of the French Revolution, genuinely radical governments, of either the Left or Right, have held power for less than 20 of them. For far more time, the country has been governed by what the historian Pierre Serna has called the “extreme centre”: regimes, some of them nakedly authoritarian (such as those of Napoleons I and III), that posed as unifying and even apolitical. And while France enjoys a reputation for political instability, it is worth remembering that in nearly all cases, professedly centrist French regimes have only collapsed in a context of military crisis or defeat, from the First Republic trying to stave off the Second Coalition in 1799 to the Fourth Republic during the Algerian War in 1958.
Absent such a crisis, the odds are against the Fifth Republic coming anywhere near the brink of the abyss over the next few years, even if Macron continues to provoke strikes and protests. More likely is the continuation of the current, familiar political theatre. And while a Le Pen victory in 2027 is certainly not impossible, for the moment it seems more likely that yet another ephemerally appealing centrist candidate will pop up, as Macron himself did in 2017. And French life will go on.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA few remarks in response to the article: one – quite so, Macron and all that he represents will survive; two – this is not a hopeful development; it represents social sclerosis, not political resilience; three – his centrism is no such thing; it is in fact a consensus of the global elite, some “liberal”, others openly Marxist, but all vehemently opposed to European nationalism; opposed, therefore, to the forces which actually make society tick. Indeed, they have effectively brought the authentic heartbeat of the west to an end, happier to sit on the shoulders of a zombie than to risk the governance of a living thing.
So, Macron and his kind will continue because they have so successfully sterilised, demoralised, divided and colonised the societies they rule. The Captain and his officers remain on the bridge because with the ship sinking the passengers and crew are too frightened or too despairing or too exhausted to remove them.
A few remarks in response to the article: one – quite so, Macron and all that he represents will survive; two – this is not a hopeful development; it represents social sclerosis, not political resilience; three – his centrism is no such thing; it is in fact a consensus of the global elite, some “liberal”, others openly Marxist, but all vehemently opposed to European nationalism; opposed, therefore, to the forces which actually make society tick. Indeed, they have effectively brought the authentic heartbeat of the west to an end, happier to sit on the shoulders of a zombie than to risk the governance of a living thing.
So, Macron and his kind will continue because they have so successfully sterilised, demoralised, divided and colonised the societies they rule. The Captain and his officers remain on the bridge because with the ship sinking the passengers and crew are too frightened or too despairing or too exhausted to remove them.
Haha, water heating up, frogs beginning to splash about a little….will they leap out?
The article is breathtaking in its bland: ”seen it all before, no biggie” calling of this as a non-event… but I am not so sure. I would wonder if this is not really about those 2 years; taxpayers know the West has spent into such a debt things will have to give here and there, no, I think that may not be it…..
During the last few years leading up to ‘The Great Depression’, when every gamble on the stock market struck gold and shoe shine boys gave stock tips and Hollywood had the world star-struck dreaming of wealth, glamour, status, and Luxury – during these mad boom times there was a phrase few people know now days; of the late 1920s. It was:
”An uneasy feeling….”
In the back of every mind, but squashed down if it came close to being talked of, the people had this uneasy feeling they could not put their finger on. Something was coming, something maybe brewing, but still the good times Rolled, Good times! but….. perhaps it was just a little too good to be quite true….
.And then Black Tuesday, and stock brokers jumping out of windows… and soup lines and factory closures.
This uneasy feeling – it is in every mind on the planet just now. Every one of us knows… we know the inflation, the covid disaster, the WWIII created and the dividing of the world into Axis and Allies – the National Debt, the Chat GPT coming for the jobs, the young people with useless degrees and their hopeless position of ever getting a house, having a family, and having a pension, the security state is Political now, the MSM, Government, Social Media – they Lie and lie and lie, and the Banks are teetering, and CBDC’s and Social Credit Scores are inevitable…. we all feel it..
This is what I read in the French fires. They are uneasy, and so are over responding……..
The underlying problem is that voters keep electing politicians who promise ice cream today rather the blood sweat toil and tears of fixing the shaky foundations and systemic problems. Once the electorate is shocked by the disastrous consequences of the current insouciant policies they will start to ask politicians to apply systemic reforms. Carbon taxes, fiscal balance and debt repayment, fully funded pensions, market set interest rates, public services that are high quality and low cost (which will require customer choice, means testing and private provision), enterprise economics requiring tax simplification, education, high savings, action on greenhouse gas emissions and and end to subsidies. All achievable but requiring a supportive and educated electorate.
I agree with you apart for the greenhouse gases bit. This is just another bandwagon scam to transfer wealth to the elite and we can’t afford it.
If you disagree, Iraq, Covid, Ukraine
I agree with you apart for the greenhouse gases bit. This is just another bandwagon scam to transfer wealth to the elite and we can’t afford it.
If you disagree, Iraq, Covid, Ukraine
The underlying problem is that voters keep electing politicians who promise ice cream today rather the blood sweat toil and tears of fixing the shaky foundations and systemic problems. Once the electorate is shocked by the disastrous consequences of the current insouciant policies they will start to ask politicians to apply systemic reforms. Carbon taxes, fiscal balance and debt repayment, fully funded pensions, market set interest rates, public services that are high quality and low cost (which will require customer choice, means testing and private provision), enterprise economics requiring tax simplification, education, high savings, action on greenhouse gas emissions and and end to subsidies. All achievable but requiring a supportive and educated electorate.
Haha, water heating up, frogs beginning to splash about a little….will they leap out?
The article is breathtaking in its bland: ”seen it all before, no biggie” calling of this as a non-event… but I am not so sure. I would wonder if this is not really about those 2 years; taxpayers know the West has spent into such a debt things will have to give here and there, no, I think that may not be it…..
During the last few years leading up to ‘The Great Depression’, when every gamble on the stock market struck gold and shoe shine boys gave stock tips and Hollywood had the world star-struck dreaming of wealth, glamour, status, and Luxury – during these mad boom times there was a phrase few people know now days; of the late 1920s. It was:
”An uneasy feeling….”
In the back of every mind, but squashed down if it came close to being talked of, the people had this uneasy feeling they could not put their finger on. Something was coming, something maybe brewing, but still the good times Rolled, Good times! but….. perhaps it was just a little too good to be quite true….
.And then Black Tuesday, and stock brokers jumping out of windows… and soup lines and factory closures.
This uneasy feeling – it is in every mind on the planet just now. Every one of us knows… we know the inflation, the covid disaster, the WWIII created and the dividing of the world into Axis and Allies – the National Debt, the Chat GPT coming for the jobs, the young people with useless degrees and their hopeless position of ever getting a house, having a family, and having a pension, the security state is Political now, the MSM, Government, Social Media – they Lie and lie and lie, and the Banks are teetering, and CBDC’s and Social Credit Scores are inevitable…. we all feel it..
This is what I read in the French fires. They are uneasy, and so are over responding……..
Great summary. I’ve seen the French weather far worse storms than this one (1968, as you mention). But then I also watched the anglophone media treat the Islamist attacks in Paris and brussels as the dawn of the apocalypse. The dust will settle, and those media will move on to the next breathless report before anyone notices how badly they missed this one.
Great summary. I’ve seen the French weather far worse storms than this one (1968, as you mention). But then I also watched the anglophone media treat the Islamist attacks in Paris and brussels as the dawn of the apocalypse. The dust will settle, and those media will move on to the next breathless report before anyone notices how badly they missed this one.
“genuinely radical governments have held power for less than 20 of the last 234 years”
Does Le Pen really qualify as “radical”? This is kind of like the near ubiquitous “far-right” slur that journalists give to anyone to the right of Trotsky.
When you have 45% of the vote, you are, ipso-facto, the mainstream of your country. If the author thinks that’s “radical”, that says more about him than Le Pen.
To call something radical doesn’t mean it is good, and it doesn’t mean that it’s bad, it just means well – it’s radical. Radicals can be from the Right: e.g. Mrs Thatcher or from the Left: e.g. Mr Benn snr. (I realise that I’m showing my vintage here by these examples). Radical can be a neutral value term, unless one is an ultra conservative (note the small “c”) in which case all change is bad and, therefore, radicals are bad.
I’m not saying radicalism is bad at all, but doesn’t being “radical” entail being a minority almost be definition? What would a “radical majority” look like? Since radicals, by definition, want to make significant changes, if they already hold majority status, there are no changes for them to make.
This was kind of the curse of the 1960’s radicals. The baby Boomers were so successful in their anti-establishment ideology that they became the establishment, and “establishment radical” is clearly an oxymoron.
I’m not saying radicalism is bad at all, but doesn’t being “radical” entail being a minority almost be definition? What would a “radical majority” look like? Since radicals, by definition, want to make significant changes, if they already hold majority status, there are no changes for them to make.
This was kind of the curse of the 1960’s radicals. The baby Boomers were so successful in their anti-establishment ideology that they became the establishment, and “establishment radical” is clearly an oxymoron.
To call something radical doesn’t mean it is good, and it doesn’t mean that it’s bad, it just means well – it’s radical. Radicals can be from the Right: e.g. Mrs Thatcher or from the Left: e.g. Mr Benn snr. (I realise that I’m showing my vintage here by these examples). Radical can be a neutral value term, unless one is an ultra conservative (note the small “c”) in which case all change is bad and, therefore, radicals are bad.
“genuinely radical governments have held power for less than 20 of the last 234 years”
Does Le Pen really qualify as “radical”? This is kind of like the near ubiquitous “far-right” slur that journalists give to anyone to the right of Trotsky.
When you have 45% of the vote, you are, ipso-facto, the mainstream of your country. If the author thinks that’s “radical”, that says more about him than Le Pen.
Google translate renders surenchère as one-upmanship. The dangers of one-upmanship are that it is competitive and those who blink first, lose.
Did Macron deliberately choose to launch pension reform by decree as a cynical bid for strong one-upmanship – or was he careless? How will it affect future French political theatre?
Google translate renders surenchère as one-upmanship. The dangers of one-upmanship are that it is competitive and those who blink first, lose.
Did Macron deliberately choose to launch pension reform by decree as a cynical bid for strong one-upmanship – or was he careless? How will it affect future French political theatre?
I hand it to the French for getting off their lounges and making themselves heard! Here in Canada Trudeau’s Liberal government did 4 things in 1 week worthy of such protests:
Trudeau added $40 billion in spending to his already historical debt spending spree; He lifted a ban on foreign housing that didn’t last 3 full months; He pushed through a bill, C-11, limiting online content and boosting censorship; and he (gasp) increased taxes on beer and alcohol!
Canadians could barely muster a yawn as they upvoted the stories on Reddit and went back to complaining they can’t afford a home, or find their favourite blog online… poor sobs can’t even afford to drink away their blues.
Even if France looses this battle, and we all know they will, at least they still care about their country enough to fight for it!
I hand it to the French for getting off their lounges and making themselves heard! Here in Canada Trudeau’s Liberal government did 4 things in 1 week worthy of such protests:
Trudeau added $40 billion in spending to his already historical debt spending spree; He lifted a ban on foreign housing that didn’t last 3 full months; He pushed through a bill, C-11, limiting online content and boosting censorship; and he (gasp) increased taxes on beer and alcohol!
Canadians could barely muster a yawn as they upvoted the stories on Reddit and went back to complaining they can’t afford a home, or find their favourite blog online… poor sobs can’t even afford to drink away their blues.
Even if France looses this battle, and we all know they will, at least they still care about their country enough to fight for it!
Errr… no it’s not… ” end of”.. goodbye.
Errr… no it’s not… ” end of”.. goodbye.