Whereas in Australia for instance, health is directly under the control of elected officials, the social security system in France is largely funded by taxes paid by employers on salaries and the various agencies are managed by 'social partners' (unions and employers).
Because the system appears independent – that is, not directly controlled by mistrusted politicians – it appears untouchable, immutable. As a result when people talk about the social security debt, they refer to le trou de la sécu (the hole in the sécu). Thereis something passive about this, as if it is not about over-spending, but rather a gap to be filled by finding more money.
The woman who worked in finance said that Fillon's plan was like a father serving his children smaller portions. To do otherwise would risk triggering mass trikes that would prompt further financial instability, before the government inevitably had to cave in. And next year Sarkozy is up for re-election, so maintaining France's AAA ranking has a special import.
Advertisement
The front-page of the left-leaning daily, Libération ran quotations from interviews taken from a 'trip across a France in crisis, meeting French people disillusioned by the return to austerity'. The interviews were of a certain type, resolutely negative; the quotations were the same: 'Today we're craven to finance'; 'The poor don't interest them (politicians)'; 'Look, no-one is smiling here'. One quotation in bold caught my attention: 'Sarkozy doesn't protect us'.
Herein we find the challenge for French politicians, as found in the paternalistic analogy, used by the woman in finance. The French look towards the state for protection, to look after them when they are sick, or provide an income when they are old, but at the same time do not trust them enough to give them the power to do it effectively.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
7 posts so far.