What began with students protesting inadequate school resources has widened into anger over the cost of living and deteriorating public services. Hundreds of thousands protested across the country. Yet images of looted shops and clashes with police have competed for attention with their demands. Although nothing justifies acts of violence, the concerns of those who protested peacefully must remain in focus.
France’s unrest also recalls ‘La Haine’, Mathieu Kassovitz’s 1995 film about exclusion and mistrust in the suburbs of Paris. Its recurring parable concerns a man falling from a building who reassures himself: ‘So far, so good’. What matters, the film reminds us, is the landing. Of course, today’s demonstrators belong to different generations and social circumstances, meaning that the analogy should not be pressed too far. Nevertheless, the warning against political complacency continues to be highly relevant.
Similar demands are also emerging in other parts of Europe, although protests in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Albania have not (completely) identical immediate causes. Beyond demands for government accountability, concerns over affordable housing, insecure employment, strained public services and rising living costs reflect doubts about governments’ ability to improve daily life. Let us not forget that for many young Europeans economic insecurity and uncertainty about the future have become familiar experiences over the past decade. Education and hard work still create opportunities, but they do not always deliver the economic independence that previous generations came to expect.
Perhaps the deeper problem is less a rejection of Europe than a weakening belief in progress. Citizens can value European cooperation whilst doubting the ability of their political leaders to secure a better future. Nostalgia for an imagined past may coexist with a desire for a future that seems increasingly beyond reach.
NEWSLETTER TABLE TALK
Never miss a story.
Subscribe now.
The most important news & topics every week in your inbox.
Peaceful assembly is a fundamental democratic right and an important means of holding governments accountable. This does not mean that violence, intimidation and destruction of property can be justified. The authorities must take the appropriate measures to enforce the law in order to properly carry out their duties. Moreover, extremist groups or foreign actors may seek to exploit social unrest, including through online manipulation. Such risks call for vigilance, but they should not become a pretext for discouraging legitimate demonstrations or dismissing the concerns that brought people into the streets.
Another problem is that, in a manner of speaking, mainstream parties ‘dug their own grave’. Political communication cannot indefinitely compensate for weak delivery. Even temporary subsidies may relieve hardship as emergency political damage control, yet they cannot repair housing shortages, productivity problems or declining confidence in public administration. Fiscal constraints are genuine, particularly in France, where large deficits limit room for manoeuvre. Consequently, the need for transparent priorities, sustained investment, and structural reform becomes all the more critical. Governments should be judged, among other things, by whether people notice improvements in schools, homes and workplaces. Such frustrations do not necessarily benefit any particular political camp. They can, however, create opportunities for populist parties promising a decisive break with established policies, especially when governments struggle to offer convincing answers.
The electoral calendar adds urgency. France will elect a president in 2027, while elections are due in several European countries. Even though their outcomes will be decided on national questions, the consequences will extend to Brussels. A stronger role for parties committed to restoring national discretion over common EU rules could affect budget negotiations, migration policy, support for Ukraine and, in general, the Union’s ability to act collectively. France’s position as a founding member of the European Communities, a major contributor to the EU budget and a central participant in EU decision-making means that a shift in Paris towards sustained confrontation over common obligations would have repercussions far beyond its borders.
Across Europe, nationalist and populist parties differ in their approaches to the EU, but some promise measures that may conflict with existing EU law. Once in government, such pledges can prove difficult to implement: national courts -an indispensable part of the checks and balances system- may be required to disapply conflicting national provisions, while the European Commission can initiate infringement proceedings that may reach the Court of Justice of the EU. The gap between populist electoral promises and legal realities risks further disillusionment. Meanwhile, sustained confrontation over common rules and decisions could gradually weaken European cooperation, even without formal changes to the EU Treaties.
The answer is not to dismiss dissatisfied citizens as misguided or to assume that every demand can be met only through financial ‘handouts’ as a quick fix for deeper, structural mistakes. It is to renew the social contract by restoring a credible relationship between political choices and everyday outcomes, while explaining why some problems require broader cooperation beyond national borders. Europe cannot rely forever on warnings about what might follow if it fails. As the central motif of the film ‘La Haine’ suggests, the condition of the landing depends on decisions made during the fall.
Dr. Apostolos Samaras holds a Ph.D. in European Law from the Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. He is a Research Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP).