On Tuesday, France will experience its second day of protests against pension reform. While the mobilization promises to be massive, the government is sticking to its positions. The postponement of the retirement age from 62 to 64 “is no longer negotiable”, said Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne.
On the trade union side, after a national mobilization of more than a million people on January 19, the movement is entering a decisive phase. Either it is radicalized by blocking actions, then risking losing the support of three out of four French people, or it is expanding and retaining its popular base, thus putting the government in difficulty.
We discussed it with specialist in the world of work Luc Rouban, research director at the CNRS and member of the Center for Political Research at Sciences Po.
What distinguishes the mobilization against the current pension reform from those of 1995 or 2010?
In a way, she looks a lot like them. You have a united trade union front, where moderate unions, like the CFDT, are associated with more protesting and left-wing unions, like the CGT. You also have public opinion that is largely hostile to this reform.
The difference is that the context has changed. Today, this challenge is no longer part of a global opposition between the world of workers, which would be on the left, and a government which would be on the right. We have in fact an opposition between a center-right government and its right-wing allies, Les Républicains (LR), who find themselves facing an opposition that unites the left but also the National Rally (RN) since the majority of Marine voters Le Pen are also opposed to this reform.
The socio-political situation has also changed. The French have a feeling of great vulnerability with the resumption of inflation because of the war in Ukraine which affects the most modest categories. You also have a big problem with the weakening of public services, such as the hospital. So much so that this pension reform is considered a bit like the last nail in the coffin of social protection in France.
Retirement is a little sacred. It is considered the only time when you will be able to enjoy a little of your life.
Does this mobilization therefore go far beyond the simple accounting of pensions?
This is the whole problem of the government, which uses economic reasoning. It is true that there is a problem of financial balance with the demographic evolution and the aging of the population. But the problem is not economic, it is social and human. We are witnessing a revolt against work that has become too intrusive in the lives of the French.
A majority of French people, including the upper categories, believe that their work is not sufficiently recognized. Not to mention telework, which has been sold to us as a form of freedom, but which is also a form of permanent intrusion into our personal lives.
However, don’t the French value hard work?
We always associate the Germans with rigor and discipline, whereas, for the French, it would be fooling around and laughing. However, European surveys show the opposite. The Germans value private life and leisure much more, while the French put work much more at the center of their lives.
We must not forget that the republican regime is based on the idea of meritocracy and success through effort, school and work. Among young people, the gap is growing between more and more diplomas and jobs that are often poorly paid and undervalued. This is the whole problem of social mobility.
However, the government seems to consider that all is well. We have the feeling, once again, that macronism is above ground. Basically, this reform is a liberal reform that sticks well to a liberal society. But France is not a liberal society. She doesn’t see herself that way.
On January 19, the mobilization was very strong in the regions, when there were only 80,000 people in Paris. Is that also new?
We feel that the Yellow Vests have been there. The difference today is also that the trade union movement is not very strong and that it does not strongly supervise this movement. There is therefore always a risk of overflow by spontaneous actions. On the 19th, there was no violence. But the risk is there, because the unions are much more criticized than before. We see it in the regions, where there are often major employment problems. We also blame these unions, which have been unable, for 20 years, to stop the liberalization of the economy. In 2019, during a demonstration, the Yellow Vests had even harassed the president of the CGT, Philippe Martinez, who had to be exfiltrated by the security service.
So these demonstrations do not show a return of the left?
It is not because the French are overwhelmingly opposed to this reform that they are predominantly on the left. Even if Jean-Luc Mélenchon tries to exploit the movement, the left is doing badly in France. According to all the surveys, it represents only 30% of the population. However, between Macron and Éric Zemmour, we find 70% of the French. In reality, the left is very weak in France. This is why more political demonstrations no longer work.
What is the place of the National Rally in this context?
The RN in 2022 is developing the idea of a social right, which was not at all its philosophy at the time of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was very liberal and wanted less taxes and civil servants. On the contrary, Marine Le Pen defends the idea of a social right which associates the idea of authority, such as the control of immigration, with the protection of the most modest employees and public services.
The RN follows a notabilisation strategy. We see this very clearly in the National Assembly. The goal is to show that he respects the institutions and does not act according to the insurrectionary rhetoric of LFI. He calls for protest, but calmly. If it ever goes wrong, it will be LFI’s fault and, if the government backs down, it will be Macron’s failure. Like all French people who seem resigned, the RN is waiting for this reform to be voted on. But with the idea that voters will take revenge at the ballot box.
The government seems to consider that all is well. We have the feeling, once again, that macronism is above ground. Basically, this reform is a liberal reform that sticks well to a liberal society. But France is not a liberal society. She doesn’t see herself that way.
The RN would therefore have become the labor party?
Yes, as we see in Denmark, its leaders believe that a large part of the immigrant population benefits from the welfare state, while the French who work and pay contributions have fewer and fewer public services. If we want to legitimize the welfare state and redistribution, they say, we must restrict immigration. The closing of borders goes hand in hand with the strengthening of work and the job offer for the most modest categories. Moreover, when Georges Marchais led the Communist Party in the 1980s, he was not at all favorable to immigration. The French needed work first.
Could the RN benefit from this strike movement?
He could emerge a winner from this confrontation. Because, basically, what remains on the right? Macron moved increasingly to the liberal right. He therefore lost his footing on the left. As for the Republicans, they have always defended an even more liberal position and even wanted retirement at 65. The RN is now in a strong position.
Don’t forget that France is Europe’s champion of political defiance. This feeling is the symptom of a deeper social malaise, which illustrates a growing gap between the political world and the reality of the social and professional world. A reality that seems ignored at the top of the state.