CHRONIC. Rigor, political taboo or theoretical weapon?

Clément Viktorovitch returns every week to the debates and political issues. Sunday March 31: rigor. A term used last Tuesday by Prime Minister Gabriel Attal.

Rigor is a radioactive word in politics. Indeed, it inevitably evokes a period during which the French will have to tighten their belts. This is why political leaders, most of the time, refrain from using it.

“We must restore the public accounts. We will do it calmly, firmly and without rigor. Simply with firmness and consistency.”

Bruno Le Maire, Minister of the Economy

on France Inter on March 18

The Minister of the Economy is not talking about rigor, just about firmness and consistency. In rhetoric, we talk about a strategy of euphemization. In everyday life, this is what we call playing with words. And the proof: Tuesday March 26, in the hemicycle of the National Assembly, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, discusses the deficit in public accounts: “We have had a drop in revenue, which is linked to a slowdown in economic activity. Faced with this, we obviously need very great rigor in the choices we make. We will continue on this path of rigor and responsibility.” This time, there is no doubt: the rigor is indeed there.

“Rigour”, a word always difficult to use

Remember: in 2010, France was preparing for a new series of measures to deal with the consequences of the 2008 crisis, but President Sarkozy refused to use the term austerity. It was only during a trip to Japan that Prime Minister François Fillon ended up declaring: “Of all the state budgets, the only one that is not subject to rigor is that of higher education.”

Even older: on March 23, 1983, when François Mitterrand announced his economic recovery plan, the same one which would be known as the “turning point of austerity”, he did so by opposing another word, used seven years earlier in a context, already, of the fight against inflation, and which evoked painful memories for the French: austerity. “I have charged Pierre Mauroy with leading this action. What I expect of him is not to implement some form of new austerity, but to continue the work undertaken, adapted to the rigor of the time, so that we emerge as quickly as possible from the trough of the storm.”

What is interesting, and which we have somewhat forgotten, is that François Mitterrand used the word “rigor” in a very particular sense at the time: that of “rude, hard”, “the harshness of times”. It was only over the course of the speeches that the word gradually took on another meaning: “the turning point of rigor”, in the sense of a “solid, exact, responsible” policy. The negative connotations, which were initially attached to this word, were gradually put aside. This explains why even today, governments prefer to talk about “austerity plans” rather than austerity or savings plans.

A word that has become ambiguous

On the one hand, it takes us back to difficult times. On the other hand, it is very difficult to oppose it. How can we, in terms of discourse, refuse an economic policy that presents itself under the guise of rigor? The word carries with it the appearance of seriousness, pragmatism and common sense: this is why successive governments have been reluctant to use it, but have ended up resolving to do so. It is not a political taboo, simply a rhetorical weapon that is only drawn at the last moment, to gain acceptance for difficult policies.

The government would probably respond that we cannot reasonably object to wanting to reduce the public deficit. This is what Bruno Le Maire keeps repeating. But it’s debatable. To respond to an economic crisis, there are two options. Either reduce public spending, to respond to the reduction in revenue – that is rigor, austerity, economy. Or, on the contrary, increase spending to get the economy moving again, even if it means initially widening the deficit – that’s recovery. This is, for example, what the United States did in 2022 with the Inflation Reduction Act: to respond to the inflationary crisis, they aligned $500 billion in increases in public spending, with, at the same time, key, a clear rebound in growth.

Austerity or recovery, what is the best strategy in the European context? It’s not for me to say: it’s an economic debate. On the other hand, what I know is that presenting the austerity policy as the only rigorous policy is entirely questionable.