Saturday, October 17, was unprecedented for France in two ways. Traditionally, six months ahead of a crucial presidential election, the country listens to candidates, compares their platforms and sometimes participates in the selection process through a primary. But in an anxious climate marked by the climate crisis, surging fuel prices and international conflicts, mounting discontent sent hundreds of thousands of anxious and angry French people into the streets.
A nascent convergence of protest movements – with no shared political goals – took shape on Saturday. It brought together notably some members of the Yellow Vest movement, who have seen their living conditions deteriorate since their protests began in 2018, and high school students legitimately concerned about their future, for whom the Lecornu government has shown little empathy or understanding.
But what will remain etched in the collective memory is the wave of violence that erupted during the October 17 protests. Alongside the intolerable looting that ravaged many businesses, a form of political violence emerged, directed against symbols of the French Republic and representatives of state authority. City halls and prefectures were targeted and, in some cases, set on fire. On Saturday night, law enforcement clashed with rioters less than 300 meters from the Elysée Palace.
This violence is part of an ongoing political reconfiguration that began with Emmanuel Macron’s election in 2017. The two former dominant parties, the Socialists and the conservative Les Républicains, have been unable, over the past decade, to regain leadership within their political spheres. Macron, for his part, either failed or chose not to establish a strong centrist political force or to unite his camp. Today, two contenders from within his coalition – Edouard Philippe (Horizons, center-right) and Gabriel Attal (Renaissance, centrist) – are vying to succeed him. In May 2027, Macron will leave the presidential palace not only alone but without any political base.
**Logic of confrontation**
This environment has fueled the rise of parties built around radical stances. Once confined to sterile opposition roles with no real prospects, the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) and radical-left La France Insoumise (LFI) now dominate public debate.
They offer two opposing worldviews. The far right defends an identity-based vision of society and openly stigmatizes immigrants or people from immigrant backgrounds. The radical left has, since 2024, challenged the government’s legitimacy and the established order, and openly embraces the idea of “making everything a conflict,” putting confrontation at the heart of its approach.
The resonance of these two political forces is such that radicalism has now become central to French political life. Both parties promise to “flip the table” if elected, each in their own way. They largely shape political debate, through the themes and narratives they promote. They project a vision of society defined by conflict and advocate a logic of confrontation.
It would be wrong, however, to place all responsibility for the political violence committed today by the ultra-left on LFI chief Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu does. But it would also be absurd to ignore the impact of this radicalism – claimed by LFI leaders themselves – on the actions of those who feel authorized to vandalize or burn buildings symbolizing the Republic. Just as it is impossible to ignore the consequences of racial and ethnic stigmatization against populations with immigrant backgrounds.
**Vast social anger**
The government also bears a share of responsibility for its inability to engage with high school students and its erratic handling of public order. Nearing the end of his term and facing a major financial crisis without a legislative majority, Lecornu – the self-described “weakest prime minister of the Fifth Republic” – no longer has any political or budgetary room to maneuver. “He’s pushing his carts to the back of the mine shaft,” observed former centrist MoDem MP Jean-Louis Bourlanges sympathetically.
The days ahead are fraught with danger. The president and government, who should, during this pre-election period, be limited to handling day-to-day affairs, now face major crises both domestically and internationally. In a state of extreme weakness, caught between vast social anger and overwhelming debt, those in power must also contain the high school student movement, all under the watchful gaze of Russian and American media.
This is a dire situation. The presidential election should be an opportunity after two and a half years of stagnation for clarity and renewed momentum. Instead, this election risks becoming collateral damage of this turbulent end to the current term, with the debate hijacked by parties seeking only confrontation, and the election of a president from a radical party that threatens to fracture the country even further.
1 Comment
Saturday, October 17, was unprecedented for France in two ways. Traditionally, six months ahead of a crucial presidential election, the country listens to candidates, compares their platforms and sometimes participates in the selection process through a primary. But in an anxious climate marked by the climate crisis, surging fuel prices and international conflicts, mounting discontent sent hundreds of thousands of anxious and angry French people into the streets.
A nascent convergence of protest movements – with no shared political goals – took shape on Saturday. It brought together notably some members of the Yellow Vest movement, who have seen their living conditions deteriorate since their protests began in 2018, and high school students legitimately concerned about their future, for whom the Lecornu government has shown little empathy or understanding.
But what will remain etched in the collective memory is the wave of violence that erupted during the October 17 protests. Alongside the intolerable looting that ravaged many businesses, a form of political violence emerged, directed against symbols of the French Republic and representatives of state authority. City halls and prefectures were targeted and, in some cases, set on fire. On Saturday night, law enforcement clashed with rioters less than 300 meters from the Elysée Palace.
This violence is part of an ongoing political reconfiguration that began with Emmanuel Macron’s election in 2017. The two former dominant parties, the Socialists and the conservative Les Républicains, have been unable, over the past decade, to regain leadership within their political spheres. Macron, for his part, either failed or chose not to establish a strong centrist political force or to unite his camp. Today, two contenders from within his coalition – Edouard Philippe (Horizons, center-right) and Gabriel Attal (Renaissance, centrist) – are vying to succeed him. In May 2027, Macron will leave the presidential palace not only alone but without any political base.
**Logic of confrontation**
This environment has fueled the rise of parties built around radical stances. Once confined to sterile opposition roles with no real prospects, the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) and radical-left La France Insoumise (LFI) now dominate public debate.
They offer two opposing worldviews. The far right defends an identity-based vision of society and openly stigmatizes immigrants or people from immigrant backgrounds. The radical left has, since 2024, challenged the government’s legitimacy and the established order, and openly embraces the idea of “making everything a conflict,” putting confrontation at the heart of its approach.
The resonance of these two political forces is such that radicalism has now become central to French political life. Both parties promise to “flip the table” if elected, each in their own way. They largely shape political debate, through the themes and narratives they promote. They project a vision of society defined by conflict and advocate a logic of confrontation.
It would be wrong, however, to place all responsibility for the political violence committed today by the ultra-left on LFI chief Jean-Luc Mélenchon, as Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu does. But it would also be absurd to ignore the impact of this radicalism – claimed by LFI leaders themselves – on the actions of those who feel authorized to vandalize or burn buildings symbolizing the Republic. Just as it is impossible to ignore the consequences of racial and ethnic stigmatization against populations with immigrant backgrounds.
**Vast social anger**
The government also bears a share of responsibility for its inability to engage with high school students and its erratic handling of public order. Nearing the end of his term and facing a major financial crisis without a legislative majority, Lecornu – the self-described “weakest prime minister of the Fifth Republic” – no longer has any political or budgetary room to maneuver. “He’s pushing his carts to the back of the mine shaft,” observed former centrist MoDem MP Jean-Louis Bourlanges sympathetically.
The days ahead are fraught with danger. The president and government, who should, during this pre-election period, be limited to handling day-to-day affairs, now face major crises both domestically and internationally. In a state of extreme weakness, caught between vast social anger and overwhelming debt, those in power must also contain the high school student movement, all under the watchful gaze of Russian and American media.
This is a dire situation. The presidential election should be an opportunity after two and a half years of stagnation for clarity and renewed momentum. Instead, this election risks becoming collateral damage of this turbulent end to the current term, with the debate hijacked by parties seeking only confrontation, and the election of a president from a radical party that threatens to fracture the country even further.