Pension reform: a tipping point for a French government in crisis?
Amid a faltering protest momentum, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne announced that the government would bypass Parliament and make into law a controversial pension reform proposal. The pensions law, a campaign promise of President Emmanuel Macron, was controversial even before the use of the executive powers afforded by the article 49.3 of the Constitution. Macron and Borne have put their reputation on the line, and faced two failed motions of no-confidence, in the hope of finalising their pension reforms.
In his second presidential term, it seems like Emmanuel Macron is ready to risk it all to tick off the objectives set out by the government for 2027. In its latest report, the French Court of Account has made it clear: France is behind its European counterparts when it comes to public debt. Emmanuel Macron committed to dragging down the government’s deficit under 3% of the GDP by the end of his term: one potential explanation for the urge to pass this reform.
While the critics of the government are getting louder, it seems like the French president is looking away, stepping back from the storm of the Assembly and the streets. Article 49.3 of the French Constitution is a sensitive topic in the country. The parliament emitted two censure motions as response on Monday but failed to dissolve the government.
An essential measure, what for exactly?
The current system relies on the working population to pay for the retirees. However, according to projections from France’s Council of Pensions Planning, with a declining birth rate on a national scale and growing shares of workers entering their retirement years, this system will eventually run short.
Emmanuel Macron made the reform of the pension system a flagship policy of his 2022 campaign. He did not react to any of the protests, sending a clear message: voters knew he would pass the text and they should not act surprised.
The French legacy of socialism and redistributive schemes is not the only reason why this pill is hard to swallow. Many agree on the fact that reforming the system is necessary, however, the government’s plan is either criticised for relying extensively on the working class or, as being counter-productive because of the concessions made in Parliamentary debates.
Furthermore, the reform has shown many weaknesses and incoherence along the way, diminishing the credibility of the government. A revalorisation of the minimal pension from 1100€ to 1200€ was a core argument in favour of the text. Experts state that only 10% of the population would actually benefit from this increase. In addition, Franck Riester, MP of the majority, declared in a live interview that women will be “a little penalised” by the reform as they are more likely to experience career breaks. He then added that “not everyone can be a winner”.
On this bumpy road, one main issue remains communication. Within six months, the government justified the text as a way to fund the country’s education; save the pension system and protect France from a financial risk. It is still unclear to the French why such a cut is essential. What remains limpid is that the government will say anything to push the reform forward.
The Union Coalition: standing strong.
For the first time since 2010, two of the main French trade unions (CGT & CFDT) are standing side by side, in opposition to the government. This alliance between Laurent Berger (CFDT) and Phillipe Martinez (CGT) is symbolic of the break between the workforce and the government.
Mobilisation reached an all-time high on the 7th of March, after which the trade unions called for a renewable strike. Garbage collectors in Paris also joined the movement. Protests were already taking place in Paris when Elisabeth Borne used the 49.3 in the Assembly. The trade union leaders reacted quickly after the event, calling for new demonstrations.
Laurent Berger denounced “a failed political compromise”, while Phillipe Martinez firmly affirmed that “a response needs to match the despise that has been shown to the people”.
Trade unions are calling for stronger mobilisation, they are however condemning the recent turn that took the protests. On Thursday evening, some streets were on fire, and violent confrontation between protesters and the police led to significant numbers of arrests.
This shifting climate acts as a significant turning point: the government has gone too far in pushing its reform forward; neither the parliament nor the public opinion will let it slide.
Article 49.3, an undemocratic tool?
Article 49.3 of the French Constitution allows the government to bypass the Parliament and force the text through legislation. By doing so, the government takes accountability for the law it introduces and exposes itself to a vote of no confidence. The later will be dissolved if the censure motion obtains the absolute majority.
This constitutional tool is unpopular among the public opinion and is perceived as a way to avoid standard democratic voting. This topic is especially sensitive as the majority already used the article in October to force a text on public finance.
The government is struggling to find allies to push legislation through parliament: the far-right and far-left are against the proposed reforms. Since 2022, Macron has been governing with a minority government formed by three centrist parties, which fall just short of a majority in the National Assembly. Instead, he has had to rely on deputies from the right-wing Les Républicans (LR) to pass legislation. Despite ongoing debates with LR, Macron has failed to convince the party to back the pension reform.
It is with no surprise that using the 49.3 appeared to the government as the least bad option. As the days passed, LR MPs willing to vote the reform became fewer and fewer. On the evening of the vote, knowing that the text will fail to pass at the majority, the government decided to push through, avoiding humiliation and defeat for the French president; at the cost of its reputation.
MPs from the majority are still claiming that the government had hoped for a vote. However, the opposition denounces the decision and is voicing its concerns. For many, the situation is profoundly anti-democratic. Mathilde Panot, a member of the left political party La France Insoumise, even declared that the country was entering “an authoritarian turnover”.
It is however in the Constitutional right of the government to use this article and has been brought up multiple times in previous presidencies. The conflict between the executive and the assembly had to be expected as both parties are defending their piece of cake. The article can be considered anti-democratic, in the way that it ignores the vote of the lower chamber, it is however a perfectly legal political tool.
For the constitutionalist Dominique Rousseau, using the article 49.3 shifts the debate. The vote will not be on the pension reforms but on the government’s legitimacy. This situation is also a continuation of the debates around the text. The opposition, by submitting absurd amendments to delay the discussions, played in a way, into this anti-democratic game.
The cost of the pension reform: a credibility crisis
Using the article 49.3 comes at a cost: facing a confidence vote and the loss of all credibility in the president and its government. Booed by most of the Assembly and facing signs “64 ans, c’est non.”, Elisabeth Borne announced on Thursday that there will be no vote on the pension reform.
Since then, two censure motions have been emitted but none of them found sufficient voter to dissolve the government in place. Mobilisations in the streets, on the other side, are becoming more radical and intense. Emmanuel Macron will now have to carry out the reform in a context of social, political, and what is now perceived democratic crisis.
The president’s popularity has never been lower since the yellow vest movement. Emmanuel Macron, in his last presidential term, is not scared to impose his reform by using violent constitutional methods in a tense social atmosphere.
The majority is defending the legitimacy of the article 49.3. However, in a situation where the public opinion and the parliament is profoundly opposed to the reform, solely relying on the French Constitution might not be enough to justify the democratic aspect of this decision.
It will now be very difficult for the current government to gain its credibility back, as it seems to be more and more disconnected from its middle and working class. Trade unions will continue to fight and want to be heard; something that seems quite out of Emmanuel Macron’s sight these days.
If the majority faces too much distrust from the streets and its political counterparts, the remaining option for the French president will be to dissolve the Assembly and call for an early parliamentary election. This scenario is still far ahead but needs to be kept in mind.
As of last night, Emmanuel Macron was 9 votes away from having to step down and dissolve its government. With no time to spare, he already called for numerous meetings with central figures of the majority. A few hours after the failed confidence vote, many protesters were back in the streets and significant strikes are to be expected.
The pension reform has gone through without a vote, but the French president will struggle to bypass the dissent felt towards his government in a context of growing civil unrest.
