A scent of political crisis hangs in the air. This Thursday, March 16, several French cities were peppered with spontaneous demonstrations, sometimes marked by violence, after the triggering of article 49.3 for the pension reform. In Paris, demonstrators gathered in the afternoon at Place de la Concorde after the call from the Solidaires union. Student unions, political organizations and representatives of several youth organizations met there, soon joined by a procession of more than 1,600 young people from the Place de la Sorbonne, but also workers (railway workers and refiners). The police intervened in the evening, gradually evacuating the Place de la Concorde after several charges and tear gas jets. According to the police headquarters, 120 people were arrested. Other incidents broke out on the territory, in particular in Rennes. Eight people were arrested and as many taken into custody following multiple damage.
Clashes also opposed demonstrators and police in Nantes or Marseille, while in Dijon, a mannequin bearing the image of the President of the Republic was burned. This rise in tension of a movement that has remained calm until now, raises questions about the continuation of the protest. Will the use of 49.3 sign the transformation of the current conflict into a reissue of yellow vests? Elements of response with Stéphane Sirot, historian, specialist in the history of strikes, trade unionism and social relations.
L’Express: Are the reactions from the street that followed this Thursday evening 49.3 a surprise?
Stephane Sirot: Not really. In 2016, when François Hollande used 49.3 for the adoption of the Labor Law, the reactions were also very epidermal. What happened last night is, in a way, “almost” normal. The question now is whether this is an emotional, spontaneous reaction, or whether we are talking about the beginning of something. If yesterday’s situation were to repeat itself, to settle over time, we would be on something much less classic, which would resemble the one we saw in 2019/2020, in the mobilizations against the pension reform of the time. The demonstrations had lasted until confinement, much in the same way as the actions of the yellow vests had continued long after their peak. We were faced with social movements that did not want to die. That may be the case here too.
Do you favor a similar scenario? Or are we in a situation identical to that of 2010, when the demonstrations had died out after the adoption in the Assembly of the reform on pensions at the time?
The deal has changed compared to 2010. At the time, Nicolas Sarkozy had a majority and was able to pass it by a vote, which allowed the social movement to step back. It had generated a fraying of the social movement, with an alignment on the political reality. Today, the scenario is not at all the same. It is not even comparable to that which François Hollande had known at the time of 49.3 on the El Khomri law. The current executive has deployed an impressive number of means and constraints. Include the reform in an amending social security financing bill, its reduced examination in the Assembly induced by the passage through article 47.1 of this PLFSSR, and, now, 49.3, which were somewhat the icing on the the cake… Today we have a president determined to use all the instruments of constraint against the opinion of a unanimous inter-union and, obviously, of a large part of the Assembly.
The situation is no longer the same and could lead to a movement with an evolving physiognomy. This could lead to a “giletjaunisation” of the social movement. The latter would consider being forced to step up in radicalism to respond to the very important balance of power installed by the executive. This would also mean a movement that would be organized beyond the inter-union, as we could partly see last night. We could see the same mode of action prosper, which would represent a real difficulty for the inter-union to control the movement, of which they have had control so far. Nothing says now that it will be the same in the future.
Would the situation have been radically different if the text had been voted on?
Emmanuel Macron intended to play for time, hoping that the legalism of the trade unions would force them to stop after the vote. But it was a failure: not only was the law not passed, but, in addition, the opposition wanted to make a motion of censure, an appeal to the Constitutional Council, or even a citizens’ initiative referendum. Institutional time is lengthening and, consequently, that of social mobilization as well.
We had heard some moderate unions say before 49.3 that if the law were passed, it would have its legitimacy. But now, advancing this explanation to end the movement is impossible. Therefore, what end point should we give to the mobilization? How to define it? The situation has become very uncertain.
The unions have announced that they have gained new members during this social movement. Can we, from this point of view, speak of a victory?
We must look at the question of the rise in the range of the balance of power. The intersyndicale remains on fairly classic methods of action, with a day of action which will take place late, next Thursday. Faced with the balance of power installed by the executive, the unions appear camped on their rituals and their routine, finally reacting only a week after the use of 49.3. Will this reaction be considered sufficient, when we see that these traditions no longer make the political power bend?
To answer the question, it will be necessary to pay attention to the actions possibly carried out in high schools during the baccalaureate exams, Monday and Tuesday. The inter-union probably chose the day of Thursday not to disturb the exams. Traditionally, the teaching world refuses to take action at this time. But what will happen if initiatives take place in the establishments, in a way that is decorrelated from the mobilization stricto sensu? The opposition movement to this reform will take on a particular colour, very different from that which we have known so far.
How could the inter-union react in the event of a “yellow vest of the movement”?
At a minimum, it should align with the demands of the field. This is the basis of trade unionism when you want to avoid losing control or being out of step: you support union members. She could have done something else, and started a dynamic based on the actions of last night, by initiating a movement.
The inter-union did not decide that, otherwise it would not have fixed the next day of mobilization seven days later. Beyond a political choice, it is perhaps an admission of weakness: its leaders may be aware that they would not have the means to lead such a strong movement.