We must return to what happened after the war

Sign of the times The reference to the second world war is constantly in the French debate, as if the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s would inevitably lead to the horrors of the 1940s. The pension reform, which now causes a new day of labour mobilization, is no exception there. Members of Parliament, senators, former resistant in turn denounced in substance "the dismantling of the legacy left by the national Council of resistance."

Devil! This political program adopted in 1944 underground is indeed a major bequest. It was he who would determine the broad lines of postwar social organization, an organization that is still there today. Re-read so with curiosity this founding text written both by some Gaullists, the royalists, the Socialists, and Communists who had so much influence. Would it require the reduction of the discount from 62 and a half years Or would it require deduction of a quarter of assessment each time that the disability rate climbs 10 Non-point. He advocates all positively "retirement for older workers to finish with dignity their days". A principle that collects a broader consensus than other NRC recommendations, such as the nationalization of major banks, the right of access of workers to the functions of the company or the development of production co-operatives.

In reality, this goal of "a retirement for older workers to finish with dignity their days" is an injunction to act quickly. It should maintain plans undermined by the crisis and decades of short-sighted management, will be in total this year deficit EUR 30 billion! Otherwise, deficits inevitably eventually weigh on provided pensions. And thus undermine the dignity of those that preferred call today seniors.

But why do the French have so hard to accept obvious changes It governance is here in issue. We must return to what happened after the war. To turn its back on the wanderings that had led to the debacle of 1940 and the disaster of the collaboration, to found the "new Republic" by the CNR, rulers have created very open institutions, pledge of democracy. For the policy, it was the IV Republic. It was the joint system, "with management representatives of interested parties and the State-owned" for the social, as stated by the CNR. The two have proved ineffective. On the side of policy, the finding was quickly developed. The election of Deputies proportional not tempered by a lock of the German majority led to chronic instability (28 Governments in thirteen years). Emiettement of power, irresponsibility, deficit need By 1958, the French voted for the V Republic. But social side, it has been otherwise. The power was crumbled and the irresponsibility of rule from the start, but the accounts themselves were not degraded immediately. Side pension, all was apparently well. There were many contributors and few retirees, who on average received their pensions for less than ten years (against more than 20 years now). Side health, the offer was limited - care, drugs, hospitals. And everywhere, the growth was to return the money in the boxes. But since the fracture of the growth in the 1970s, the balance becomes more complicated. Health insurance has continued without end since the 1980s rebalancing plans. The insurance-age too, since now almost twenty years. And this is not finished, because pensioners will become more and more while the contributors will diminish.

This inefficiency of social governance, a French exception, has become one of the major handicaps of the country. As always in France, the change will be smooth. To reinvent a new social contract, must be what the historian Jacques Marseille called a "break-momentum" (1), such as those experienced by the France with Henri IV after the edict of Nantes or with Bonaparte in 1799. It is probably too early. The France is not quite wrong.