Benjamin Morel is a lecturer in public law at the University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas.
FIGAROVOX. - Can a strong mobilization against the pension reform on January 19 weaken the executive?
Benjamin Morel. -
The mobilization of January 19 makes it possible to engage in a more or less favorable way to the unions a balance of power.
It is therefore important for the future, but it is not in itself sufficient to worry the government.
The real balance of power relates to the strike, and to a strike that lasts, in key sectors capable of blocking the country.
The demonstration essentially makes it possible to show the strength of the movement and to give reasons for hope to the strikers and their support in public opinion.
It is essentially the combination of a strike in blocking sectors and the support of public opinion that can result in a deep weakening of the government.
Facing the street, can Macronist power count on the support of French supporters of order?
If we draw a parallel with 1995, we see that support for the strikers may tend to grow.
In 2010-2020, it held up just as well.
The issue of pensions concerns a large part of society and is grafted onto a deleterious climate, particularly on the issue of purchasing power.
Moreover, we have seen great stability in the polls on the subject since the summer of 2019. There is therefore no reason to think that public opinion will not support it.
Moreover, the latest strikes have shown that a low rate of strikers could be enough to seriously disrupt essential services.
If the government has already lost the battle of opinion, the unions should beware of thinking that they have already won it.
Benjamin Morel
On the other hand, certain actions can weaken the support of the population.
We are currently talking about targeted power cuts, for example.
This is disastrous for the unions.
From a media point of view, the stigma is reversed and the “victims” of the movement are staged, which weakens the discourse, making the general interest and the rationality of the protest prevail.
In other words, if the government has already lost the battle of opinion, the unions should beware of thinking that they have already won it.
Isn't this social movement likely to give the impression that LR is a proxy for the power in place, and therefore to weaken the right?
This is a risk for LR, especially since with the use of article 47-1 of the Constitution, it is not even certain that we will have the time to study and adopt their amendments.
The cohesion of the LR group will also be put to the test when at least a third of the right-wing deputies in the Assembly do not necessarily plan to vote for the reform.
LR's bet to be responsible in the eyes of their voters most attached to financial balances to better fight the battle on the immigration text is not easy.
Indeed, it is likely that the present reform will crystallize tensions much more and ultimately that the distance will widen between LR and part of its potential electorate.
The left and the unions leave united. Can this social movement erase political differences in view of the next elections?
Clearly, no.
What fractures the left is deeper.
There is a question of political line, it's true, but not only.
Interests are also divergent.
Local elected officials do not want radicalization while their electorate, small in number given the abstention rate, is largely made up of CSP+ and retirees.
The deputies fear a fracture of the Nupes which would transform their constituency into an ejection seat and give Emmanuel Macron serious reasons to bet on dissolution.
By embodying a firm but responsible opposition to the reform, Marine Le Pen has only to play on the weakness of her adversaries to assert herself by contrast.
Benjamin Morel
Some staffs have their eyes riveted on the European elections, which are historically rather unfavorable elections for LFI and could therefore make it possible to rebalance the balance of power.
All of its factors will not be erased by a victory or a defeat on the pension reform.
On the other hand, the parliamentary battle can exacerbate the strategic oppositions between groups composing the alliance.
Indeed, LFI will undoubtedly want to play the massive obstruction while the use of 47-1 makes the latter little profitable and that it is better to have fewer amendments, but amendments likely to collect ad hoc majorities, making it complicated the task of the government to maintain the balance of its text.
How can the RN play its game politically?
It's complicated for the RN because he doesn't really have the keys to this conflict.
It cannot mobilize in the street and therefore has no impact on social conflict.
He does not weigh on the support for this reform either and only follows the opinion of his electorate on this point.
In the Assembly, the strength of the RN is so far to have been where it was not expected.
But there are no surprises here.
The RN will vote against the reform and if it can play the arbiter on a few amendments, given the turn that parliamentary debates should take, this will only have a limited impact.
It is Nupes who will lead the battle of obstruction and LR who will play the key players.
As often, the best strategy for the RN is to wait and hoard.
LR will in this battle close itself a little more the possibility of taking over the popular electorate.
The Nupes risks making tons of it and being associated with certain overflows within the framework of the protest actions.
By embodying a firm but responsible opposition to the reform, Marine Le Pen probably only has to play on the weakness of her adversaries to assert herself by contrast.
