18.09.2002
'Prisoner' Chirac on the attack
France's neoliberal chickens have come home to roost, as the rightwing government of president Jacques Chirac and prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin - helped into power by the opportunism of the left - has begun to go onto the offensive on all fronts. The programme of privatisation and cuts is to be stepped up, anti-democratic electoral reforms are to be introduced and, last but not least, the flagship of the outgoing 'pluralist left' administration - the 35-hour week, representing the only partial gain achieved by the working class under Lionel Jospin's Socialist Party-led coalition - is coming under concerted attack. Boosted by his huge second round victory over Jean-Marie Le Pen in May's presidential poll, Chirac used his enhanced prestige to appeal for a rightwing majority in the elections to the national assembly the following month. He called on the electorate to finish with left-right governments of 'cohabitation' and opt for stability by putting into office the newly created Union for a Presidential Majority (UMP). The electorate obliged. The UMP won a landslide victory and the extremes of right and left were marginalised. The revolutionary left, whose three candidates had polled more than 10% in the first round of the 'presidentials', could only manage three percent between them in the 'legislatives'. The Parti Communiste Franà§ais hit an all-time low of less than five percent. True, Le Pen also saw a substantial drop in support for his Front National, but the overall result was that French politics, which had been so polarised before and immediately after April 25 (the first round of the presidential election), had been pulled back to the centre ground of bourgeois society. The Fifth Republic had been saved and the neoliberal offensive could resume with a vengeance. "The intense lobbying of the employers' federations has borne fruit," announced Le Monde (September 6). The government had "opened the way for the return of the 39-hour week". A few days later the same paper reported: "With every new detail, released sparingly and prudently by the government, the Aubry laws on the 35-hour week every day appear a little more emptied of their content" (September 10). This week changes to the Aubry laws, put forward by Franà§ois Fillon, minister of labour and social affairs, are going before the council of ministers, and are due to be debated in the national assembly on October 2. Technically the 35 hours are to be kept in place, but 180 'supplementary hours' will be permitted each year (ie, the equivalent of four each week). Up to now the legislation has meant that any additional hours worked (up to four a week) must be repaid in time owing by the employers, who were obliged to pay overtime at 25% above the normal rate for any hours over and above four. Now the provision for time owing is to be abolished and the government proposes to fix a legal minimum rate of 10% for the first four hours. In the words of Raffarin, this represents a "return to 39 hours at a cost of 10% for the extra four hours". The government intends to gradually erode the gains of Aubry, which were in any case often offset by counteracting measures. Firstly, there were so many exemptions and temporary stays that by the end of 2001 only 53% of the workforce had gone over to 35 hours. Those that did enjoy a shorter working week often found employers attempting to eat into breaks, and it appears that workers who have come under Aubry have borne the brunt of modération salariale (wage restraint), compared to the workforce as a whole. In addition the 'annualisation' of working hours allowed for variations from week to week within the 35-hour average. Thus in projected slack periods hours could be fixed at, say, 32, and pushed up above 40 during seasonal highs - unpaid overtime, in other words. This proved popular with the employers, who seized the opportunity to make savings from this increased flexibility - 40% of businesses adopted some such system of variable hours. All in all, according to the revolutionary democratic publication La Lettre de Liaisons, Aubry has produced "a net increase in the rate of exploitation of the workforce" (September 11). Liaisons notes that this was combined with the "gain by wage-earners of days, half-days and hours in variable proportions. The workers will defend these gains, but will never mobilise for any so-called defence of the Aubry laws against the wicked Fillon." Annualisation is to be taken to its next logical stage under the latest proposals. The loi Fillon will remove reference to the 35-hour week and replace it with its annual equivalent - 1,600 hours. Millions of workers who do not yet come under the 35-hour week may see cuts in overtime pay for the first four hours as a result of the 10% 'floor'. No wonder Fillon claims that the "easing of the 35-hour week will permit a better response to the needs of our economy" - and the "aspirations of wage-earners" too, of course. Union leaders, who were in the forefront of the campaign to keep out Le Pen by re-electing Chirac, are now wringing their hands at the result of their folly: "We run the risk of seeing all the agreements that we have so painstakingly negotiated called into question," whined Michel Coquillon of the CFTC. Maryse Dumas of the PCF-led CGT complained that the government was giving the bosses "a weapon to kill the 35-hour week". And that is not all they are being given - employers' social security contributions are to be reduced and a section of the bourgeoisie is to be awarded 'licences to print money', as gas and electricity are the latest industries to face privatisation. Despite the income anticipated from the sale of such assets Raffarin's promised reductions in tax will require cuts in remaining public services - also necessary to bring the budget into line with the terms of the EU's growth and stability pact by 2004. That is why there is no question of increasing the size of the workforce and why the 35-hour week must be neutered. In fact the government will continue the drive of the previous left-right administration to shed workers - 2,000-3,000 jobs are to be lost in education, it was announced earlier this month. Of course, Chirac and Raffarin are having to tread carefully - unlike in Britain the French working class has undergone no strategic defeat. However, there is no doubting the setback it has suffered - nor the renewed confidence of the right, which, in the words of one Socialist Party deputy, is being "driven by a very strong sense of revanchism". In this context it is certainly worth reminding ourselves of the self-serving predictions of the left - of both the reformist and revolutionary variety - in the run-up to the second round of the presidential elections. PCF general secretary Robert Hue notoriously urged his members to vote for Chirac without hesitation. A huge vote for the incumbent would apparently make him a 'prisoner of the left' in his second term: "The weaker Le Pen's showing, the more difficult it will be for Jacques Chirac to paint the result as massive support for his own candidacy." When PCF voters - not to mention supporters of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire - went out and voted "against Le Pen" on May 5, this was viewed by their respective leaderships as a correct and principled, if not revolutionary, act. Voting against Le Pen and for Chirac was said to be totally in tune with the millions who demonstrated their outrage throughout France - not only at the fact that an anti-semitic, ultra-chauvinist bigot could win through, but also (less consciously, it is true) at the undemocratic system that left them with the non-choice between a "crook and a fascist". The day after Chirac's victory, the PCF daily L'Humanité commended the "new generation that magnificently rose up in the streets on April 22 and maintained its revolt at the ballot box" (May 6). No irony was intended, it seems. John Bulaitis, LCR apologist, supporter of Resistance and Socialist Alliance member, had used an identical argument to that of Hue: ""¦ Chirac and his supporters are beginning to realise that they face the problem of 'legitimacy' if elected by 85%-90% of the vote. In that situation, paradoxically, Chirac would be a weakened presidency, elected with a historically low vote for a sitting president in the first round, and with the votes of the left in the second round" (Weekly Worker May 9). No doubt Chirac was mighty relieved to have achieved 'only' 80%. Needless to say, six weeks later Hue, along with 13 PCF comrades, lost his seat in the national assembly. Similarly the LCR's own vote was slashed, as voters followed through the logic of their action on May 5 - and the advice of mainstream politicians - and cast a "useful vote" to keep out the extremes of right and left. The establishment has made clear its intention to ensure that there will be no repeat of this year's presidential poll in future elections. Raffarin has announced changes aiming to further marginalise smaller parties. Under the reforms first past the post will apply in all elections, including for the European parliament. In future only the two highest placed candidates will go through to second round of legislative and regional elections - as opposed to anyone attaining 12.5%, as at present. Noà«l Mamère, Green Party deputy leader and presidential candidate, complained: "The government is confusing France with Britain or the US. Bipolar politics does not suit our culture." In fact it is Mamère who is confusing things. These proposals owe nothing to a desire to do down French "culture"; everything to the imperative to establish stability in the interests of capital. As far as the bourgeoisie is concerned, a good start was made with thumping victories for the main defenders of capitalism in both the presidential and legislative elections - with a little help from the left. Thankfully, not all of the LCR membership - nor indeed all of their international comrades in the United Secretariat of the Fourth International - were compromised by their attitude to May 5. The LCR executive was split down the middle and only voted by the narrowest of majorities to recommend a Chirac vote. The principled minority called for an active boycott of the second round - neither Chirac nor Le Pen, but working class independent action. Some refused to go along with the decision. A group of comrades from the LCR's youth section marched on the May 2 demonstration in Montpellier with a banner proclaiming, "Against Chirac, Le Pen and the Fifth Republic" and were subsequently expelled. They have since formed the Unity and Revolution Fraction, whose bulletin has just republished the statement of the LCR's Usec comrades in Ireland, Socialist Democracy. Socialist Democracy condemned the "opportunism" of the LCR and its supporters in Britain - namely Alan Thornett and the International Socialist Group (see 'Reject LCR-ISG opportunism'). At this year's Communist University comrades Thornett and Bulaitis maintained their pathetic defence of the LCR 'vote Chirac' line. Hopefully the latest assault on the 35-hour week will give them cause to rethink. I can only endorse the sentiments of Socialist Democracy, whose statement reads: "We urge all our comrades in the Fourth International, including the membership of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and leadership of the International Socialist Group in Britain, to reject this opportunist policy." Peter Manson
Worker