Tribune. The five-year term which ends will remain marked by the greatest ambiguity on the subject of pension reform. Announced in the presidential program, the reform is thought of as the great social reform of the five-year term, marked with the seal of the values of macronism.
Five years later, it is clear that, if the subject is still alive – largely because of Emmanuel Macron himself -, the initial ambitions seem to have passed through profit and loss.
Five months after the presidential election, the device is however in place. Faithful from the early hours, Jean-Paul Delevoye is its center of gravity; he surrounds himself with a very high level team around Jean-Luc Izard and Philippe Laffon. Having a solid reputation for skill and adored by the new parliamentarians of the majority, Jean-Paul Delevoye then seems to have all the capacities to achieve this reform deemed difficult and hypersensitive.
hesitant communication
At the time, few observers noted that Jean Pisany-Ferry, yet at the heart of the development of the presidential program, was not responsible for leading this reform. Nor that there is no “heavyweight” adviser at the Elysee Palace on this subject, as was Raymond Soubie for the 2010 reform under the five-year term of Nicolas Sarkozy. And, however, these two elements already say a lot about the weight of Matignon on this file.
From the outset, the divide between the supporters of the disruptive reform and the champions of budgetary orthodoxy, heirs of Alain Juppé, will appear. It must be recognized that Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s roadmap is not the simplest, and his cabinet is convinced that it is not possible to reduce by three points the share of public spending in the gross domestic product ( GDP) in five years without making substantial savings on pensions.
This fragmentation into two camps will last throughout the five-year term, during which they will neutralize each other. Sterile and disastrous opposition, if there was one. Because, in reality, no one denies that it is necessary to bring the pension system back to balance, a balance which is also at the very heart of the so-called systemic reform, as Mr Delevoye has repeatedly reminded us.
The question is not whether we should regain balance, an objective which is obvious. It is a question of knowing whether we resort, once again, to old recipes which only settle the problem very temporarily and wear down the confidence of the French, or if we try to think of a new system, in a peaceful climate, in seeking the adhesion of the French. This basic division of the majority is the main cause of the particularly hesitant and vague communication of the executive on this subject throughout the period, which will gradually fuel the mistrust of the French.
You have 69.66% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.