The promulgation of the “pensions” law comes to close a now well-established ritual from which (real) pension reforms never escape. As in 1993, 1995, 2003 and 2010, that of 2023 aroused great traditional anger. In public opinion, it provoked a dissatisfaction legitimized without nuances by the pollsters. But finally, it is not surprising that the enthusiasm is not there when we call on the French to shake up their life projects by asking them to contribute several additional quarters.
In the Hemicycle, it unsurprisingly pushed the opposition to relay these agitations: amendments by the tens of thousands to slow down the debates, verbal violence to pollute them, grotesque stagings to ridicule them. In the media, the speakers have, as always, succeeded to discredit the reform described as useless or unfair, to criticize the timing imposed by the government or its communication. In reality, there is never a good time to ask the French to make additional efforts. As there is no good way to present a reform which, although vital – and the French in their hearts know this perfectly well – can only be de facto unpopular.
And yet, while nothing in this eternal ritual should have come as a surprise, the media and a good number of political leaders preferred to give in to the sirens of another story, that which the far left is rewriting. A veritable intellectual imposture which, since the beginning of this reform, has endeavored to present a France on the verge of insurrection, on the eve of a revolution and the big night.
First of all, although predictable, each stage of the legislative process has been commented on, wrongly, like so many dramatic gradations of which only the best films have the secret. While the strategy of obstruction and the proliferation of amendments were presented as the first real issues in the pension reform, it was ultimately complaints about the lack of discussion or about the sincerity of the debates that fueled the news channels. information for long weeks. This dramatization culminated on March 16 when 49.3 was used. A device which, although used 100 times since 1958, has been described without qualification as undemocratic by all the oppositions. Then, held spellbound by this parallel reading of events, political commentators waited for a turnaround. Although unlikely, the adoption of a motion of censure thus absorbed all the attention for an entire weekend. But it was probably last week that true-false suspense was elevated to the rank of major art. While the Constitutional Council was to judge exclusively in law by ruling on the conformity of the law with the Constitution, it was more the political dimension of the decision that fueled the debates: nonsense. Once again, the delusions of the Nupes and the rewriting of our democratic functioning have found an echo on TV sets.
Unfortunately, while the process is coming to an end, the discourse presenting a France on fire and blood does not end there. After having denounced the violence of the government rather than that of the opposition, after having pointed the finger at “police violence” rather than that of the activists who confront them in the streets with Molotov cocktails or throwing acid, it is now the violence of the Elders and their decision which is denounced by Jean-Luc Mélenchon. A final attempt to present a distorted account of the reality of our country.
Because, behind the overmediatization of the garbage collectors of Hidalgo and the black blocks, the facts are stubborn: 1.12 million demonstrators on January 19, 740,000 on March 28 and 380,000 during the last day. The rates of strikers have followed the same collapse over the weeks. Huge mystification which, drawing its legitimization from the polls, has tried to make people believe that in a democracy the violence staged by a few must have the last word. As the Guignols de Canal once asked, it really is time to turn off the television.