Skip to main content

Is Emmanuel Macron Retiring French Democracy?

French President Emmanual Macron’s recent decision to pass pension reform via decree — instead of putting it to a vote in the National Assembly — has added fuel to the fire that continues to consume the rubbish-filled streets of Paris. 


Earlier this year, despite polls consistently showing a majority in disapproval, Macron decided to push ahead with his most unpopular platform initiative: pension and retirement reform. The law will raise the retirement age to 64 from 62 by 2030 and requires workers to contribute a minimum of 43 years in social security payments for a full state pension. The fact that Macron activated Article 49.3 of the Constitution (similar to an executive order) to pass the reform without a vote turned public anger to outrage.


In March, the bill survived a vote of no confidence and was enacted into law. This deepened a widely shared feeling amongst the French public that top politicians do not hear the grievances of their citizens, diminishing trust in the government and democracy. 


One young French citizen, Lena Cayo, said she was disappointed but not surprised by the decision: “We are protesting for so many weeks and the government didn’t hear us,” she said, “Workers who have gone on strike or protested the legislation since January are fighting for their rights, but nothing changes”. Other protestors explained that they were not protesting against the pension reform itself, but rather the undemocratic way Macron adopted it.


Furthermore, reform opponents claim the government's handling of the protests is in itself undemocratic. They argue that the government failed to engage in meaningful consultation with workers and other stakeholders and instead imposed the reform through executive decree, bypassing the usual legislative process. Eventually, Macron invited labor unions to meet with him following the mounting tensions. The unions rejected Macron’s invitation, noting that he had refused their previous offers to meet, and called for mass new protests. They also accused the government of using heavy-handed tactics to suppress the protests, including the use of police violence against demonstrators.


Before the no-confidence votes, Fabien Roussel, the national secretary of the French Communist Party (PCF) said, “French democracy is in a deep, deep crisis. This is extremely dangerous. We urge the president to come to his senses. It is damaging our republic, our country, and it could cause a serious crisis, the outcome of which nobody knows.” Clearly the country has entered a moment of political and social unrest driven by the lack of democratic processes. This is outlined by the French Prime Minister’s, Elisabeth Borne, words claiming the decision “marks the end of the institutional and democratic path of this reform,” adding that there was “no victor”. 


French democracy has taken a severe blow. The power of executive figures has damaged the weak connection between the government and the French people. No matter the politics behind the reform, Macron’s executive action threatens legislative and democratic efficacy. The mass protests have raged on in response, but the lack of response by Macron and other officials speaks louder. 


This silence was broken this Monday, April 17, by Emmanuel Macron from the Élysée. In his speech, he reaffirms and praises his "necessary" pension reform. He admitted that the reform is “obviously” not accepted, shared his regrets about not being able to find a consensus, and assured, “Nous devons en tirer tous les enseignements [We must learn all the lessons]”. He then quickly switched the subject to the future, expressing his plans for the next three months: "Nous avons devant nous 100 jours d'apaisement, d'unité, d'ambition et d'action au service de la France. Je vous fais confiance, je nous fais confiance pour y arriver [We have before us 100 days of peace, unity, ambition and action in the service of France. I trust you, I trust us to make it happen]”. His use of “us” is a feeble attempt at repairing the weak link between the executive office and the French people. Unfortunately for the President, recognition of public discontentment is too little too late.


As Macron stated, France needs to take this as a learning lesson. An executive order on such a socially contested issue is rightfully bound to cause a negative reaction. Moving forward, France should use this social uproar to revitalize its democracy. This takes effort on both sides: French citizens must improve their falling voting rates and continue to protest, openly expressing their grievances. Simultaneously, politicians need to recognize public concerns as their top priority and produce related policy. Maintaining the connection between the people and the government is key to strengthening democracy and legitimacy. These actions will help put out the fire burning from lack of democratic adherence.


By Bronwyn Metz

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Good & Bad of Straight Ticket Voting

Voting – especially in our current political climate – can be stressful. Oftentimes, voters can feel overwhelmed standing at the voting booth making a decision candidate by candidate, for many, it is easier to straight party vote. While straight-party voting is only an option in seven states; Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Nevada, it is often seen as the ‘easy way out’. By checking one box, you are able to cast your ballot for every candidate of your chosen political party. This does not typically allow for the consideration of third-party candidates and does not encourage voters to be familiar with or educated on each candidate or state question prior to heading to the polls. During his time as the United States' first President, George Washington was quick to warn citizens against party loyalty, now, nearly 27.2 million registered voters in America have the option to do just that, should they decide to go vote. There are a variety of views re...

Why You Should Care About Moore v. Harper

So you may be wondering, what is Moore v. Harper? This groundbreaking case has been going on for over a year now, and when its final verdict comes out this year, it will have major implications for voting rights for many Americans. In 2021, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature passed a bill that gerrymanders districts to create a state supermajority for their 14 seats. The map gives the Republicans a 99.9% chance of retaining their majority. The state voters were very unhappy with this and decided to contest this map in state courts, as there was a Supreme Court precedent that stated that federal courts cannot hear partisan gerrymandering cases. They contended that this map violated the North Carolina state constitution’s free election clause. At the time, the North Carolina Supreme Court had a Democrat majority within their elected court. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the voters and struck down the map stating that it was an “egregious and intentional par...

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The following is a legal disclaimer for the blog published by the George Washington University chapter of Democracy Matters: The views expressed in the posts on this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Democracy Matters. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their posts, and Democracy Matters does not endorse or assume any responsibility for any opinions, statements, or other content expressed in these posts. The information provided on this blog is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice or guidance. Readers should not act or rely solely on the information provided on this blog without seeking the advice of a professional. Furthermore, Democracy Matters does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information provided on this blog. While we make every effort to ensure that the information on this blog is up-to-date and accurate, we ...