By Dr. Badr Smaoui, Expert in Social Protection
The debate resurfaced recently regarding the draft law aimed at establishing an “optional early retirement for the working woman in the private sector.”
This proposal, submitted by a group of deputies in July 2025, stipulates the possibility for the active woman in the private sector to retire at the age of fifty, without the condition of being a mother of three children, provided she has completed 20 years of contributions to the National Social Security Fund (CNSS).
Only in the private sector?
The bill proposal limited to women workers in the private sector, a choice that seems unjustified. Indeed, if the argument invoked rests on the hardship of working conditions, it remains relative: many women in the private sector hold administrative positions under normal working conditions, while conversely, women in the public sector work in arduous conditions, particularly in the health sector.
Moreover, the bill did not specify whether this new form of early retirement concerns only employees under the non-agricultural regime—as is currently the case for mothers of three children—or if it extends to agricultural sector workers, as well as non-salaried women in agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, and why not to other regimes managed by CNSS. The ambiguity lies in the use of the term “working woman” rather than “employee.”
Secteur ou Caisse ?
The bill uses the term “private sector,” a term lacking precision. Indeed, retirement regimes are not classified according to a public/private sector distinction but rather according to two social funds: on the one hand, the National Pension and Social Welfare Fund (CNRPS), governed by Law No. 12 of 1985 concerning the civil and military retirement and survivors’ pension regime in the public sector; and on the other hand, the National Social Security Fund (CNSS), governed by Decree No. 499 of 1974 concerning the pension, disability and survivors’ regime in the non-agricultural sector.
By adopting the expression “private sector,” a legal issue arises concerning public-affiliated companies that are CNSS members: being not in the private sector proper, the question remains whether this law would apply to them or not.
Disparités des conditions d’octroi
The reference to the distinction between the two pension regimes is not a mere administrative procedure; it concerns unjustified disparities related to the retirement conditions for mothers of three children.
Indeed, at the National Pension and Social Welfare Fund (CNRPS), the woman must prove 15 years of service and have three dependent children under the age of 20, or one child with a severe disability. However, this right is conditioned by the approval of the Head of Government. Because of this last requirement, no woman has obtained such authorization since 1985 to date.
By contrast, at the National Social Security Fund (CNSS), the required conditions are 15 years of service and three living children, with no age requirement (under 20), no mention of an alternative for a disabled child, and above all, no need to obtain the employer’s consent. As a result, the number of women who benefited from this retirement rose from 228 in 2000 to 834 in 2010, reaching 2,130 in 2020.
Un chèque en blanc ?
The bill emphasizes, in several of its articles, the need to “respect the financial balances of the National Social Security Fund (CNSS).” In reality, the phrase “respect the financial balance requirements of the CNSS,” inserted into a law intended to enshrine a social right, is a vague and legally imprecise formulation. It could be used later to restrict or hinder the application of this right.
Given the chronic financial deficit of the Fund — which stood at 950 million dinars in 2023 and rose to 1.2 billion dinars in 2024, with forecasts indicating a continuation of this trend in the coming years — the chances of implementing this law financially remain weak. This risks turning the text into a mere “blank check.” It is also recognized that any form of early retirement leads, on the one hand, to cessation of contributions and, on the other hand, to pension payments over a longer period.
Les répercussions économiques et sociales
The early retirement of a portion of the female workforce would reduce the active population on the labor market, particularly at the age of fifty. That age corresponds to full professional maturity, which could negatively impact the productivity of private sector companies, which need to preserve their human capital.
Socially, the low wages of the majority of working women would inevitably translate into meager pensions. For example, the total amount of CNSS expenditures in 2020 for early retirement for mothers of three children was about eight million dinars. Dividing this amount by the 2,130 beneficiaries yields an average monthly pension of 310 dinars, barely two-thirds of the then Guaranteed Minimum Wage (SMIG).
Such modest pensions could compel some retirees to engage in activities in the informal sector. Finally, the early cessation of professional activity can lead to the social isolation of the woman, not to mention health risks: while continuing to work helps maintain mental and physical activity, early retirement can accelerate the pace of health decline for some individuals.
Des motifs fragiles
Beyond the gaps in the bill’s text, the statement of motives proves unconvincing, whereas it constitutes an essential explanatory document to understand the provisions and the aims of the project, serving as a complementary tool and a reference for legal interpretation.
In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the Circular No. 15 of 2023 from the Government Chief, dated June 13, 2023, concerning the standards for drafting bills. It emphasizes the need to explain the project’s context, its objectives, as well as a summary of consultations carried out during its preparation. It also recommends, where possible, accompanying the project with a comparative law analysis, doctrine, jurisprudence, as well as studies and research that informed its drafting.
Among the examples illustrating the fragility of the motive statement for this early retirement, one cites the argument to “allow the woman to develop her skills and knowledge,” as if men do not have this same need. Another argument cites the possibility for her to “devote herself to volunteering and charitable work” which would require funding when the pension amount is so small that it cannot guarantee a minimum vital livelihood.
Domestication rather than valorization
To address the harsh working conditions in certain sectors, it would have been wiser, instead of resorting to easy solutions like early retirement, to work on developing health and safety legislation for women. In this regard, indicators published by the National Health Insurance Fund (CNAM) for 2021 reveal that 85% of people with occupational diseases are women.
Allowing women to take early retirement at the age of fifty may seem, at first glance, to be a form of empowerment; in reality, it is merely domestication relegating them to a domestic role. Moreover, international conventions do not authorize granting a social advantage to one sex at the expense of the other unless there is an objective reason such as maternity leave for women, for example. Consequently, just as we must ensure not to discriminate against men, we must also avoid falling into the opposite extreme by discriminating against women in order to comply with the principle of equality of rights and duties stated in Article 23 of the Constitution.
