French Breakdown

USS Clueless has a letter from France describing the current union strike over a mild change in the pension laws. He includes an even more worrisome letter.

The institutional problem is that France is no longer a democracy, or at least a normally functioning democracy. There is an unofficial fourth branch of government – the labor unions – who in effect legislate by paralyzing the country with strikes in key areas of public service (education, transportation, etc.) until the government gives in to their demands.

...The balance of power has shifted away from representative government to the street, with a resulting gross inequality of treatment among different labor groups in the public and private sector, based solely on their nuisance ability.

...Whereas Americans have a natural suspicion towards state control and power, the French exalt it. They all rely on the State for everything and demand everything of the State.

...French social and political choices are also driven, I believe, by the fact that it is a "low-trust" society, to use Fukuyama's terminology. The entire social organization is based on lack of ability to rely on others coupled with little sense of individual obligation to the "other"; hence, the necessity to have "rights" guaranteed in the form of State enforced legislation.

...I think this point also goes a long way towards explaining the recent misunderstanding between France and the U.S. regarding Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraqi compliance with inspection requirements. The French routinely disregard international treaties. For example, they have the worst record in the European Union on implementation of EU Directives. Their signature on the Kyoto Accords or on the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court is basically meaningless – ie, "for show" only – since they know that if one of their own gets into a bind, they will simply ignore the treaty.

Thus, the French may be genuinely surprised that the Americans might feel betrayed by their double cross on the UNSC resolution regarding Iraq. They may simply not have felt that, in the absence of any real requirement of compliance with their prior "word", they had entered into any serious obligation to be consistent. The same applies to their refusal to allow NATO to provide advance protection to Turkey: again, they do not share the same sense of obligation.

Well worth reading.