Advance and Retreat

A show of spring fury against France's government is really about fear of change

"Ah, to breathe the fine air of France!" as he spoke in mock-heroic tones last week, Sayed Diakite, 19, a student from the southern suburbs of Paris, was smiling gleefully, and weeping at the same time.

Like hundreds of other young people boxed in by riot police between the Bon Marché department store and the Hotel Lutetia in the heart of the Left Bank, his eyes were running in reaction to pungent tear gas and smoke from a burning newspaper kiosk. Amid the uproar, Diakite and his fellow students felt a budding sense of empowerment. Up to half a million young people had gone, some riotously, to the streets throughout France on Thursday. Then, joined by union members and sympathizers, as many as 1.5 million joined marches on Saturday, some of which ended in violent clashes with riot police. Would this show of force bring a government that seems ever more out of touch to its knees?

Again the intro about the irrelevant violent bits. (Note that on French TV, the riots were covered, but AFTER all the reports on the demonstrations and the negotiations. They were shown, because they do take place, but it's not what this is all about. I think this is the right way to talk about it)

(...)

France is in another bout of revolt against its government, conducted with the kind of theatrical brio that seems more the antithesis of dialogue than its prelude. Union leaders are threatening a general strike later this week. Many of France's universities have been in an uproar for a month. The Sorbonne, the iconic epicenter of the idealistic May 1968 student uprising that nearly brought down an earlier government, has been closed for the past two weeks. At issue this time, though, are not the heady concerns of '68: the Vietnam War, or the ideas of socialism and free love.

"Theatrical brio". That sounds a lot like "élan". All these clichés seem to have been nicely absorbed by all journalists.

The 2006 rallying point is a new law, backed by Villepin, to reduce France's chronic and debilitating youth unemployment, which has rarely fallen below 20% since 1983 and currently stands at 22% -- and at more than 40% in the poorer neighbor-hoods that exploded in bitter rioting last fall. His plan: a "first employment contract" that allows employers to fire workers under the age of 26 within two years of their hiring, without cause and with no obligation to shell out France's hefty severance payments. Making it easier to get rid of unsatisfactory workers, the government believes, will help employers overcome their reluctance to hire young people in the first place. The law's critics say it will promote tenuous jobs and make it even harder for young people to find steady employment.

The usual mistakes as everywhere with some variations:

• the unemployment rate is not misused, but neither is it explained, and will be understood by all as "20% of youth are unemployed"
  
• a new one: "France's hefty severance payments". Where does that come from? Any numbers? How are they heftier than anywhere else? I thought the problems was that you could not fire people?
  
• getting rid of "unsatisfactory" workers - that's actually a smartly ambiguous way to describe things. It's true, in the sense that this is presumably what the law is meant to allow, but it suggests that the laws will finally allow to get rid of incompetent workers (and that indeed comes further down the article)

The law has hit a raw nerve in a society deeply attached to the idea that a job is forever. A poll last week found that more than two-thirds of the population -- and more than 80% of the young people the law aims to help -- want the government to rescind the law's terms. For some, opposition justified violence. At the Sorbonne, a minority of protesters hurled anything they could tear loose -- umbrella stanchions, metal barricades, café chairs -- at the shields of riot police, who replied with water cannon and tear gas. "The bourgeoisie to the gulag!" read a wall scrawl.

Most of last week's demonstrators deplored the violence -- but not the passion that underlaid it. Marchers derided throwaway "Kleenex jobs" for the young as the first chink in the armor protecting France's tradition of jobs-for-life. "This law is a sign of social regression," said Gilles Debin, a white-collar union official who joined the Saturday protest in Paris. "It leaves the workers with no recourse, and we'll oppose it and anything like it until it's withdrawn." Even many with sinecures in the public sector saw the law as the start of an invasive ultra-liberalism that would one day threaten their livelihoods.

"deeply attached to the idea that a job is forever". Where is THAT meme coming from? That's never been the case or, if it has, it hasn't been for at least 30 years. This is just one of these casual slanders that pile up and up and up...

"Marchers derided throwaway "Kleenex jobs" for the young as the first chink in the armor protecting France's". The FIRST CHINK? How dare they write that kind of crap? For the past 20 years the political discourse about the code du travail has been a one way street about the need for more flexibility, less taxes on wages, less protection... The reality has been somewhat different under left wing and right wing governments, but the overall direction has been clear: to give companies cheaper and more compliant labor.

The young -- those most in need of a leg up -- heaped scorn on a law intended to help them. Serbian-born Zeljko Stojanovic, 19, joined the march with fellow high school students of foreign origin from the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis. "They want to close off immigration and doom young people to the lousy jobs nobody else will take," said Stojanovic, who wants to be an auto mechanic. "We're the ones who'll suffer if the bosses can just fire people without cause." Privileged university students saw matters no differently. Said Florian Louis, 22, a history student at the prestigious L'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales: "Maybe you can talk about labor flexibility in England or America, where there are lots of jobs. But not here. France wants no part in a race to the bottom." Neither young man seemed to understand how labor flexibility created those jobs in Britain or the U.S., underscoring the failure of the government to make a persuasive case for its policies.

Again an argument not based on facts.

The student rebels of 2006 had little of the revolutionary optimism or willingness to escape conformity for a precarious existence that infused their brash predecessors at the Sorbonne in '68. "Today's demonstrators are in a very real manner reactionaries," says Dominique Moïsi, deputy director of the French Institute on International Relations, "rejecting any prospect of more risk." Fear of losing jobs in a country that is poor at creating new ones may be the cause of the moment.

It is not poor at creating new ones, dammit! Stop repeating lies mindlessly. Go get the facts. You have a column in the FT, you owe it to your readers.

But French ambivalence about a changing world is nothing new. In the 1950s, French novelist Pierre Daninos suggested it was part of the national psyche to battle gallantly -- if often fruitlessly -- against invasion, as national treasures such as Joan of Arc once did. By that measure, the French in the streets last week were fighting to hold back the inexorable challenge of international competition. "It's pure negativism, and that's typical of today's France," says Ezra Suleiman, professor of European studies at Princeton. "No one is suggesting what should be done instead to increase employment. It seems like the only solidarity France can find these days is solidarity in negative action."

"gallantly and fruitlessly"; "the inexorable challenge of international competition". The same meme again - that of a country lost in an earlier century and doomed.

As to the "only solidarity". Stop talking about thing you know little about.

(...)

But dumping an unpopular policy would leave the larger problem unanswered: How to modernize France? Jobs will not spring magically into being if the hated employment law is abandoned. Eventually, structural reforms will be needed to transform France's prospects -- and that will need fresher, more politically astute leadership than the country has now.

Howto modernize France? How to create jobs? Look around, it's happening!

André Glucksmann, one of the new philosophers who emerged in 1968, thinks that the great majority of French voters -- the ones who didn't march last weekend -- know that things have to change. "Every generation we have a war, a revolt or a revolution," he says. "That's how we recycle our élite." Rising to the top of preliminary polls for the presidency are politicians who propose new ways of doing business: Sarkozy, who talks of a "rupture from the policies of the last 30 years," and Socialist Ségolène Royal, who has scandalized her party leadership by praising Tony Blair's pragmatic market policies. They'll hear none of that at the Sorbonne these days. But for all the fury last week, even France can't resist the winds of change forever.

Royal said that Blair was to be praised for actually spending more money on education and healthcare. How on earth did that ever got transformed into "praising his pragmatic market policies"? Because nothing Blair does can ever be described as "socialist"? The implicit tone here, as always, is that she praised the "market" bit, not the "pragmatic" (i.e. lefty) bit of the policies.

Wankers.

As to "France can't resist the winds of change forever", we'll see. Not if I have my say!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes