People don't want that too, of course.

> also what's the point of having a Parliament that doesn't decide anything

Parliament decides most things, it's just that there is the option to force stuff through them in limited types of scenarios and a limited amount of times (which they can refuse with a motion of no confidence). So it's not like the President can just rule by decree and do whatever they want.

> What's the point of democracy if you don't let people decide anything?

What can I say, democracy has it's flaws. People are easily attracted to empty populists that promise stuff that doesn't make sense, or would be downright catastrophic; politicians are incentivised to think short term (next election cycle) instead of medium and long term (nobody got reelected because they gave money to a nuclear research programme that is scheduled to finish in 30 years time). Having politicians with the guts to make reforms that are needed, even if unpopular, is crucial for the long term health of a country. Sadly it's quite hard to have that without spiralling into authoritarianism, and downright impossible to differentiate between that and a politician doing things for their own (friends/business partners) benefit - e.g. did Macron force this reform through because, as he says, he believes it's necessary to avoid French debts spiralling out of control, or because it will push more people into private retirement schemes and he's getting a cutback from that?