[A-List] France: social democrats to the rescue

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Le Monde / France hobbled by social fracture /

Prime minister needs a pact with French voters and unions before they will
accept much-needed reforms

Somewhere along the line during the trial of strength that began in April
between the French government and sections of the population, the prime
minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, painted himself into a corner.Any decision
to yield to the demonstrators' demands and withdraw his plan to reform the
pensions system would have a disastrous effect on the spirit of the reform,
which has acquired a particular urgency now that the European economy is
struggling. Yet if he digs his heels in, the relationship between the French
people and their politicians is likely to deteriorate even further.

How did it come to this? There is an element of deja vu about the train of
events that we have just been through. Each time Jacques Chirac takes the
helm - as prime minister in 1974 and 1986, and as president in 1995 - he
gets off to a good start. But things quickly turn sour, as a familiar
pattern of events repeats itself: he keeps a few campaign promises but is
soon forced to tighten the purse-strings; he steps down when he feels he is
in danger of becoming unpopular (1976), or when he has to pay the price for
having practised the art of the u-turn a little too cynically (1988 and, to
a certain extent, 1995).

Raffarin also bears his share of responsibility for the present situation.
It was he who decided to press ahead with a reform of the pensions system.
He could have chosen to do so by decrees - a technique used by Edouard
Balladur as soon as he became prime minister in 1993; or he could have shown
political savvy by adopting a softly-softly approach.

A historic set of circumstances might also have worked in his favour:  the
defeated left was still struggling to find its voice; the trade unions were,
if not well disposed, then at least determined not to be seen as
irresponsible; and public opinion was convinced that reform was needed.
Raffarin let that opportunity slip through his fingers by not doing enough
explaining and, above all, by adding to a string of ill-prepared utterances
by members of the government, which culminated in an extraordinarily
supercilious remark during a visit to Quebec, when he said France was
becoming a "society of leisure" . . . where people had "got out of the habit
of starting work early".
Raffarin must know that you cannot explain reform to people unless you
accompany it with a coherent and motivating view of the future.

In 1994 Chirac wrote La France Pour Tous (France For Everyone), a kind of
manifesto for his presidential campaign. It opened thus: "France suffers
from more serious ills than is imagined by politicians, economic leaders,
fashionable intellectuals and media celebrities. The French people have lost
faith. Their feeling of helplessness encourages resignation; it could well
prompt anger."
Chirac argued that "too many French people feel misunderstood", that "too
many people in positions of responsibility reason in terms of figures, not
people's lives", and that "the fate suffered by the least affluent French"
calls for "a sea change". He was talking about "the social fracture" that is
back in the news.

The government thought it could  confine the present protest movement to a
single area: pensions. But it miscalculated. For what has been expressed is
a more general feeling of weariness and exasperation, which has affected a
wider spectrum of the public than just those who have been on strike. The
moral crisis and the malaise suffered by teachers and health professionals
is affecting everyone. Far from responding to those worries, the government
has hinted that when people come to retire they will find themselves in a
worse situation than they are in now.

Meanwhile large-scale unemployment - society's veritable weapon of mass
destruction - is back with a vengeance.
The only explanation being offered by the government is the same negative
message that has been trotted out since the 80s - that we must make efforts
and sacrifices, and accept that benefits we had assumed were safe for future
generations are no longer guaranteed.

Yet all is not doom and gloom. One could point to the dynamism of the
interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, or the international standing enjoyed by
Chirac and his foreign minister,  Dominique de Villepin, which protected the
government for a time - but also masked dissatisfactions that now threaten
to snowball.

But the headaches remain. There is the problem of the rift between elected
representatives and the country at large; the problem of inequalities, which
the government has chosen to ignore (as can be seen from its decision to cut
taxes); and the problem of social cohesion: the question of how to socialise
youngsters from an immigrant background has yet to be comprehensively
tackled.

Far from being lethargic, those who are the country's lifeblood would
willingly rally round a collective ambition that regards reform as
synonymous with progress.
Raffarin made another mistake whose immediate effect was to widen the gulf
between citizens and those who govern them. That mistake was his "all or
nothing" approach which, when it came to the pensions reform, made a
stand-off inevitable.

Raffarin did not want substantial negotiations. He managed to push through
an agreement with two of the leading trade unions. Then he did his best to
restrict debate to the parliamentary arena - at a time when it was clear
from the mounting abstention rate at elections and the recurring
demonstrations that wage-earners felt they were being ignored.

The government has managed to conjure up the illusion that there is only one
way forward for the reform - a reliance on "common sense", which is the
prerogative of established politicians who are not interested in listening
to alternative suggestions from the trade unions.

If France is to carry out its much-needed reforms, in every domain and in
the general interest, it needs a social pact. A refusal to engage in genuine
dialogue with the unions is bound to endanger that goal. The government
would be very wrong to assume that it has won the day if the strikes peter
out. The price it will have to pay for its arrogance and pigheadedness next
time will be much, much higher. <I> May 27</I>

The Guardian Weekly 20-3-0605, page 29