French President Emmanuel Macron is being criticized for pressing on with a divisive pension reform despite a lack of parliamentary support and angry protests across the country. It’s true that he’s gambled, but he’s right to persevere. Macron’s reforms are both moderate and necessary: It’s his critics who’re letting France down.
Outsiders can only marvel at the rage aroused by Macron’s proposal. Over more than a week, hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets, widespread strikes have roiled the economy, extremists have attacked police and damaged property, flights and public transit have crept to a standstill, and some gas stations have all but gone dry thanks to refinery disruptions. Trash piled up across Paris as garbage collectors walked out.
For all that, the mooted reforms aren’t exactly revolutionary. Macron wants to gradually raise the basic retirement age from 62 to 64, which would still be low in comparison with most other countries. Although modest, that change would make a significant difference: Because the current system replaces an unusually big share of incomes in work, it costs 14% of gross domestic product, roughly double what the US spends on its own relatively generous public-pension program. Public spending in France stands at some 60% of GDP, leaving no room in the budget for such excess. The longer the needed reforms are delayed, the worse the fiscal problem will get.
In short, the case for action could hardly be stronger — which might explain why many are attacking Macron for the method of his reform as much as its substance. Unable to command a majority in parliament, the president used a constitutional provision to advance the plan at his own initiative. This maneuver, known as 49.3, has yet to be reviewed by France’s constitutional council. But it appears to be lawful in this case and is otherwise almost routine: Introduced by President Charles de Gaulle, it’s been deployed 100 times by successive governments.
Of course, a straightforward vote would’ve been preferable. Invoking 49.3 was bound to not only inflame the backlash to Macron’s plan (as it has) but to validate the widespread perception of the president as imperious and dismissive of dissent. His critics argue — with some justification — that Macron is substituting his personal judgment for that of the two-thirds of French voters who oppose the plan.
Yet there’s a measure of hypocrisy in these claims. Many parliamentarians who had declined to directly support the pension reform chose to sustain the government in the confidence votes, allowing the plan to proceed regardless. This was a craven denial of responsibility. If they opposed the plan, they should’ve blocked it. If they saw the case for it, they should’ve said so, and put the argument before voters. Instead, they’ve allowed Macron to take the heat for changes that almost every fair-minded analyst has concluded are needed to put the country’s finances on a sustainable footing.
Leadership sometimes demands making unpopular decisions. Macron has risked his government and his personal popularity (which has plummeted) to stick with an unloved but necessary reform. Even if he loses this gamble — even if the strikes and protests eventually force him to back down — he has done the right thing.
____
The Editors are members of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.
