FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Francois Hollande, the Austere Socialist

by PHILIPPE MARLIERE

London.

As François Hollande hits the 100-day mark, what is the verdict on the man at the top of French politics? In terms of style, his trademarks emerged quickly enough. Hollande has renewed the Gaullist interpretation of the presidency: in accordance with the letter of the constitution, he sees his role as an above-the-party arbiter who lets the prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, govern. Unlike Nicolas Sarkozy, Hollande neither polarises public opinion, nor does he arouse strong feelings. He is generally described as “decent” and “modest”; adjectives that were never associated with Sarkozy.

Three months on, however, the novelty of this change is beginning to wear off. Over the course of the last week, commentators in the media have called on Hollande to start being more specific about his policies and priorities. Some journalists have even begun to mock his quiet tone: the expression présidence pépère (“cushy presidency”) has been used in several broadsheets.

So where is France really headed? In line with Hollande’s Agenda for Change, released on 4 April, the new Socialist majority in parliament passed a rash of bills before the recess on 2 August. Most were intended to generate an extra €7.2bn to meet the 2012 deficit targets. The highest-profile reversal of previous government policy was the decision to resume taxing overtime pay and putting an end to state subsidies to fund that exemption. “Work more to earn more” was the flagship measure of Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign. It aimed to boost the economy by deregulating the labour market. In fact, this reform did nothing to stimulate employee income but cost the state more than €25bn in tax relief.

Another law reinstated salary-based charges that employers pay – the previous government had shifted those costs to the general public in the form of a tax increase. The infamous Tepa law, passed in August 2007 – which lowered taxes on assets of wealthier people – was also revised. Jérôme Cahuzac, the Socialist minister for the budget, declared that this “exceptional contribution is a big effort being demanded of those who can afford to make it”. It sounded like an uneasy plea to the rich, rather than a confident decision. This half-hearted approach augurs badly for the intentions of the government when it comes to addressing the widening gap between the rich and the rest of the population.

Furthermore, a 75% tax rate on those earning more than €1m, and a new 45% rate on those earning over €150,000 has been delayed until the autumn. At the same time, the minimum wage was increased by a token 2%. This felt like a slap in the face for the trade unions and low-income voters.

But what about the much-heralded “Tobin tax”, introduced on 1 August? It’s worth clarifying that this is a tax on only 0.2% of the value of financial transactions. Another tax aimed at high-frequency trading was also implemented. The so-called frequency tax is 0.01% on the amount of stock orders modified or cancelled that exceeds 80% of all orders transmitted in a month. In short, it’s more of a “non-transaction” tax.

These “achievements” promised to shed a new light on Hollande’s much trumpeted intentions of “further regulating the markets”. The government has used taxation to dissuade bankers from deliberately placing false orders in an attempt to manipulate the market. Take note: Hollande did not try to ban certain practices or introduce new rules. He is simply trying to benefit modestly from the system as it stands.

In the run-up to the election, Hollande had promised to renegotiate the EU fiscal compact. This endeavour was supported by a large majority of voters. On 29 June, after one of those dramatically choreographed EU summits, a glowing Hollande appeared before cameras and declared: “Europe has changed in the right direction.”

Yet the French president spectacularly failed to keep his word. Angela Merkel’s and Sarkozy’s treaty has prevailed unchanged. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Left Front presidential candidate, denounced it as a “knockabout farce”. All Hollande could claim was a derisory “growth pact” worth 1% of the EU’s GDP (€130bn). More embarrassing was the revelation that the growth package entailed deploying up to €55bn in unspent EU structural funds.

The Socialist president has not opposed the EU-inspired austerity programmes that are strangling the economies of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Worse, he has implicitly endorsed them by sending an unprecedented, thinly veiled warning to Greek voters days before the dramatic rerun of the general elections. He hinted that if Greeks insisted on casting their votes in favour of Syriza, a leftwing “anti-austerity” coalition, it could cost them Greece’s participation in the eurozone.

On 9 August, France’s constitutional council ruled that the adoption of the EU fiscal compact did not require a change to the constitution. This would have necessitated the support of three-fifths of MPs; an unachievable majority. Instead, the treaty will enter into force if the government passes an “organic law” by a simple majority. Hollande said there would be no referendum on the new treaty – he is afraid of losing it.

This denial of democracy has infuriated the left. Many argue that the pact allows Brussels to dictate national policy by allowing it to impose sanctions on countries that fail to respect a structural deficit ceiling of 0.5% of GDP. The diktat will restrict all governments’ room for manoeuvre in the foreseeable future. What is more, it dramatically undermines parliament’s powers to pass laws as it sees fit for the country. When the French return from their summer holidays, they can only hope for further spending cuts (€33bn in 2012-14) and tax rises to meet Hollande’s 3% deficit targets by the end of 2013.

Hollande has chosen to stay the course of the punitive austerity policies that are ruining European countries. Mr Normal has quietly taken to the neoliberal sea – and he makes no waves.

Philippe Marlière is a Professor of French and European politics at University College London (UK). He can be reached at: p.marliere@ucl.ac.uk

COMING IN SEPTEMBER

A Special Memorial Issue of CounterPunch

Featuring recollections of Alexander Cockburn from Jeffrey St. Clair, Peter Linebaugh, Paul Craig Roberts, Noam Chomsky, Mike Whitney, Doug Peacock, Perry Anderson, Becky Grant, Dennis Kucinich, Michael Neumann, Susannah Hecht, P. Sainath, Ben Tripp, Alison Weir, James Ridgeway, JoAnn Wypijewski, John Strausbaugh, Pierre Sprey, Carolyn Cooke, Conn Hallinan, James Wolcott, Laura Flanders, Ken Silverstein, Tariq Ali and many others …

Subscribe to CounterPunch Today to Reserve Your Copy

Philippe Marlière is a Professor of French and European Politics at University College London (UK). Twitter: @PhMarliere

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
David Swanson
100 Years of Using War to Try to End All War
Andrew Stewart
The 4CHAN Presidency: A Media Critique of the Alt-Right
Edward Leer
Tripping USA: The Chair
Randy Shields
Tom Regan: The Life of the Animal Rights Party
Nyla Ali Khan
One Certain Effect of Instability in Kashmir is the Erosion of Freedom of Expression and Regional Integration
Rob Hager
The Only Fake News That Probably Threw the Election to Trump was not Russian 
Mike Garrity
Why Should We Pay Billionaires to Destroy Our Public Lands? 
Mark Dickman
The Prophet: Deutscher’s Trotsky
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of the Toilet Police
Ezra Kronfeld
Joe Manchin: a Senate Republicrat to Dispute and Challenge
Clancy Sigal
The Nazis Called It a “Rafle”
Louis Proyect
Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor
Charles R. Larson
Review: Timothy B. Tyson’s “The Blood of Emmett Till”
David Yearsley
Founding Father of American Song
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail