the spirit of charles de gaulle wanders through the corridors of the Eliseo Palace. In a handful of days, Emmanuel Macron he went from a scenario similar to the one that ended up removing the creator of the Fifth Republic from power, to challenging the influence of the United States over Europe as did the general who, since 1940, embodied proud French nationalism.
De Gaulle made his prime minister, Georges Pompidou, resign and took authoritarian measures to quell the protests of the so-called French May, which shook the country in 1968. But he weakened and soon after had to leave the political scene, secluding himself until the end of his days. days in Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises. That rebellious movement that engendered student leaders such as Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Alain Krivine ended up losing the tussle with conservatism, which returned to power in the following year’s elections with a revived and strengthened Pompidou.
Macron had given in to the “yellow vests” when he eliminated the increases in diesel fuel from the 2019 budget, as demanded by the demonstrations at the turbulent end of the year in 2018. But he did not give in to the protests against the reform that raises the retirement age from 62 to 64 years.
It also did not take authoritarian measures or oust its prime minister, Elisabeth Borne. What he did was take the issue to the Constitutional Council, which approved 30 of the 36 articles. In this way, he shielded the changes in retirements.
It will be necessary to see if his victory is maintained or if the protests began a process of weakening like the one that began to consume the popularity of the general in the burning barricades of the French May. So that the same thing doesn’t happen to you, Macron drew a letter that De Gaulle he had drawn ten years before the 1968 protests: French nationalism challenging American leadership.
The soldier who had “put France on its feet” against the Nazi occupation and the Vichy regime through a historic message on the BBC, never digested that Eisenhower forced the French, Israelis and British to cease the war against Egypt that they had launched in 1956 , when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. At that point, he had no choice and the military actions ceased. But from then on he invested his energies in equipping France with the nuclear arsenal that would allow it to avoid following orders from Washington.
The leader of the Fifth Republic was not proposing that Western Europe break with the United States, but rather that it have its own agenda and deal equally with the American power. Macron raised the same thing on his trip to China, where he had unfortunate expressions in political and strategic terms. He said that Europe must not complicate its relationship with China over Taiwan, which sounded like a blank check for Xi Jinping to invade the island when he sees fit. He seemed to speak on behalf of Europe while relegating Úrsula Von Der Leyen to the background, despite the fact that the president of the European Commission made that visit with him.
The French president’s agenda was for Xi to reduce his cooperation with Russia to a minimum, refusing to provide it with weapons and pressuring it not to use nuclear weapons. But his remarks on Taiwan imply urging Europe not to be drawn into a confrontation with China by the United States, while trying to make it clear that Xi must not precipitate events on the island. By the way, the North American advance to establish a geopolitical fence in the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea, does not seem a prudent policy. Cornering the Asian giant that forged its nationalism in the humiliating Western interference of the 19th century and early 20th century, could lead the world to a conflagration with apocalyptic consequences.
As Macron puts it, the EU must ensure that the world does not return to an East-West confrontation in which China is the enemy of the West, but to keep it within a system of coexistence and cooperation, resolving issues such as Taiwan with negotiations that protect the interests of both parties.
However, it does not seem to be promoting his vision in the right way. What Macron said about the dispute between Beijing and Taipei sounded divisive for the Western powers and permissive for the military occupation plans that China hides less and less.
The French leader has solid reasons on the underlying issue, but he is wrong in the forms. The same as with the pension reform. No one can accuse him of not having announced what he would do with the pension system. The reform was part of the program presented in the electoral campaign. What he had not announced is that he would impose it without the vote of Congress, through a decree.
Much of the social indignation that turned into massive demonstrations has nothing to do with the substance but with the form. And the shape is not a minor issue. Macron is convinced that this extension of the retirement age, still lower than that of many of its European neighbours, was totally necessary so that the pension system does not collapse in a few years, strangled, above all, by the growth in longevity and the decrease in the birth rate of the French. It bets that this achievement will generate confidence that will attract private investment, to move away the horizon of collapse of the pension system. However, his achievement would not serve him for another reelection because the constitutional reform of 2008 established that the president of France can only be immediately reelected once.
As the cost of this reform has been very high in terms of social support, Macron will have a hard time leaving a successor in the Eliseo Palace. The polls show that the one who has benefited the most from the discontent caused by the way the reform was imposed is the leader of the extreme right, and Marine Le Pen, who has already promised to reverse it as soon as she becomes president. So would the leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon.
Did Macron miscalculate in imposing this reform the way he did, or was he so successful that it was worth paying the price in protests and unpopularity? It will be known in the coming years. At the moment he has defeated the demonstrations because the pronouncement of the constitutional court gives a shield to the reform. But De Gaulle had also stifled the young people who proclaimed “imagination to power” and, shortly after, he had to leave the presidency and seclude himself in La Boisseirie, a nineteenth-century mansion in the countryside where he secluded himself until the end of his days.
