𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙍𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 ?

(Published in l'express of 30th June 2026-diiferent version)

(As I had pointed out in my article published in L’express of the 24th June, I do not believe that attempts to revive the dying low-tax liberal economy model by such measures as means test or targeting of pensions will help in reforming an unjust, unequal, unfair system - it's only a kind of compromise that satisfies the ultimate beneficiaries of the present economic system-the low tax liberal model)

Let us go along with those who are arguing that there were no other option than to implement the Pension Reform ?- the very ones who were “tap la tab” in the National Assembly when the calamitous reform measures were being announced.

In many capitalist countries similar reforms are being implemented. Why do these reforms face less resistance and seem more acceptable, more palatable to their citizens?

Why is it that , in many of these countries, the political and social verdict doesn’t always hold ultimate sway ? For example, pension reforms don’t clash so aggressively , so fiercely with social justice and purchasing power considerations.

What went wrong with our attempts at Pension Reform ?

What has many of our pro-pension reform politicians overlooked and are not making an effort to acknowledge?

𝑬𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒔 carried out in many capitalist countries (Not in Scandinavian countries where the welfare state is characterised by an extensive social security system and a high degree of income equality):

a. 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕-𝑪𝒖𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈: Successfully navigating pension reform requires building public trust by demonstrating shared sacrifice. Convincing voters that a reform is necessary—and not just a way to balance the budget on the backs of retirees— depends on proving that the government is simultaneously cutting its own excess, eliminating waste and redundant bureaucracy, reducing political perks, downsizing bloated public entities, freezing non-essential governmental purchases and reforming inefficient public spending.

b. 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 : Major pension reforms are typically announced years in advance to give citizens and employers time to adjust their financial planning. Germany for example, is announcing now that it will gradually raise its retirement age to about 70 by the early 2090s.

More importantly , open communication on the Commission of Experts’ Report and active public debate on the different options are essential for successful pension reform. Public dialogue builds trust and legitimacy. Stakeholders and citizens must be actively engaged in discussions to balance long-term fiscal sustainability with social protection.

Without robust dialogue, governments struggle with public trust, but transparent consultations lead to constructive compromises. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗼 𝗼𝗻. It should have involved proper public hearings and stakeholder consensus rather than unilateral policy announcements.

c. 𝑷𝒉𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏: Avoid sudden shock to the system. Announcing changes well in advance provides time for families to adjust their savings and retirement choices, which significantly reduces the cost of the transition. Governments utilize this lead time to establish expert commissions, debate legislation, and implement gradual, multi-stage transitions.

A gradual scaling of income thresholds and eligibility ages gives retirees essential time to adjust to new pension structures. When rapid reforms disrupt financial planning, public backlash and constitutional challenges often follow. Instead of abrupt shifts, phased adjustments allow citizens to plan for their futures securely.

Eliminating pensions completely over a single income limit can be jarring. A tapering mechanism gradually reduces pension payouts based on additional income, preventing sudden financial cliffs.

• d. 𝑷𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑾𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 𝑳𝒐𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒔: Excluding investment income like dividends and interest creates significant inequality in a means test. It unfairly penalizes formal wage earners while allowing wealthy individuals drawing passive income to qualify for public benefits. Omitting this income creates loopholes that shield the rich from contributing.

Rubyna Dyall in her penetrating and sagacious analysis titled "𝑰𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒔, 𝑳𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒄𝒚, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑴𝒂𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒖𝒔", perceptively highlights that "... 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦. 𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧? 𝘖𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵, 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺?" ( a thought-provoking post)

Those who were” tap la tab” should be realising now that we are having affair with a bunch of amateurs .

Eski sey sa ki PM pé appel réalisme et responsabilité, li pé badiné !