No-Confidence Man: Retirement Reform Gets Uglier
The government barely survives a vote to dissolve it, but emerges greatly weakened.
Walking back to the RER station last week at Les Châtelets, I stopped at the plaza and took a long look at one of my favorite cathedrals in the city, Saint-Eustache. There were no mounds of garbage in sight, no streams of protestors. Just a quick snapshot of tranquillity.
That has been the exception rather than the rule in France since the government of Emmanuel Macron decided to hit the pause button on the whole democracy thing and enact his controversial retirement reform by fiat. That is a thing that one can do in France. It’s like a powerful form of an executive order a U.S. president can issue, except the results become law.
Last week, unsure that the retirement reform legislation would get a majority in the Assembly, Macron’s prime minister Elisabeth Borne invoked Article 49.3, which sounds a bit like something out of a Star Wars movie.
Order 49.3, in this case, allows the government to do an end run around the pesky legislature when the latter is not falling in line. In this case, that’s not so surprising considering Macron’s party lost its majority in the national elections. Since then, Macron has decided that he don’t need no stinkin’ majority. Despite only having a plurality, Macron opted to press ahead with an ultra-controversial plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64.
Side note: This has become journalistic short-hand for the plan, but retirement isn’t so simple in France (is anything, really?), and most French don’t retire nearly as early as conventional wisdom would make you believe. Read this thread if you want to nerd out on French retirement. And then, if you understand how it works, please come explain it to me:
In any case, an up or down vote might have diffused some of the tension. But the decision to skip a vote sparked an even greater backlash.
Now people were mad not only about the reform but also about the brutal manner by which it was imposed. Over the weekend, there were spontaneous protests, stuff getting set on fire, threats to cut power to whole towns, and demands for more personal security for members of Macron’s parties.
Immediately after 49.3, there were calls for no-confidence measures in the government which led to a dramatic vote today. While such no-confidence votes are common after 49.3 is invoked, the consequences are a bit fuzzy. Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne would likely have to resign (though Macron is expected to chuck her aside no matter what and reshuffle his cabinet). Then it is possible that the Assembly would be dissolved, forcing a new round of legislative elections.
This makes for tricky political calculations. Maybe you vote to dissolve the government to rebuke Macron, but then you put your own seat at risk. Over the weekend, reporters tried to tally potential votes, but the outcome remained far from clear.
And so, the Assembly convened Monday afternoon to debate the no-confidence measure. It’s probably a bad sign when people are starting the week by debating whether you are more like Caligula or Jesus. But such is the level of political discourse in France.
To great surprise, the measure fell only 9 votes short, winning 278 votes but needing 287. Almost immediately, members of the far-left rose and shouted at Macron to resign and then whipped out signs that had slogans like, “RDV dans la rue,” “64 years, it’s no,” “We’ll continue,” “RIP.”
Protestors took to the streets after the vote, a taste of what is likely to come. Some legislators continued to call on the prime minister to resign, with one saying her government is “already dead.”
After Macron’s party lost its majority last year, he promised to reach out more to opponents. But instead, his government has used 49.3 almost a dozen times to pass bills. I understand that consensus-building doesn’t seem to be in his DNA. And frankly, coalition-building doesn’t really seem to be a thing in French politics. But I still don’t understand why the government couldn’t take more time to build support for the changes, or begin the process by getting everyone around the table to discuss ways to strengthen the retirement system.
I get the theoretical arguments that longer lifespans could throw the economics of retirement out of whack. But that’s not going to happen tomorrow. Why did this legislation need to be voted on last week rather than in 6 months? Why not start fresh with a new plan and find areas to compromise?
Alas, that’s not going to happen now. The fuse has been lit, and France is looking at weeks of strikes and blockades by people who are likely beginning to wonder whether there is even a point to voting.
Chris O’Brien
Le Pecq