The protests that began in mid-September in French schools, initially motivated by the shortcomings of the educational system, have become one of the main reasons for political confrontation six months before the presidential elections of 2027. The mobilizations then spread to universities and converged with the demands against the rising cost of living, until acquiring a dimension that the serious disturbances of last Saturday, October 17, have fully transferred to the race for the Élysée. The main presidential candidates now disagree both on the causes of the violence and on who can respond to social unrest and guarantee public order.
The Government of Sébastien Lecornu, weakened by its lack of parliamentary majority and the difficulties in responding to the economic demands of the protesters, has attributed part of the escalation of violence to the radical left, while Jean-Luc Mélenchon accuses the Executive of resorting to police action to discredit the protests. Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella, for their part, have used the looting and attacks on public buildings to reinforce their discourse on the authority of the State and present the National Rally (RN) as an alternative to both Macronism and La France Insoumise (LFI).
The mobilizations have reopened two debates that have been traversing French politics for years: the deterioration of purchasing power and distrust towards institutions. The way each party responds to these concerns, without being associated with the episodes of violence, can influence the mobilization of its voters and the alliances that are negotiated in the face of a potential second round of the presidential elections.
Macron and Lecornu seek to regain political initiative
As the student protests spread across French territory and pressure on security forces increased, the Executive began to harden its response until combining the defense of police action with direct accusations against La France Insoumise. Lecornu holds the leaders of Mélenchon's party responsible for contributing to the climate of confrontation, an interpretation that the left rejects and that has shifted much of the public discussion from educational demands to political responsibility for the disturbances.
Emmanuel Macron, who cannot aspire to a third consecutive presidential term, has backed the security forces and warned that those who participated in the looting and attacks against institutions must answer before justice, although he has also claimed that the right to peacefully protest should be preserved.
For the presidential space, a response focused exclusively on security could fuel criticism from the left, while any perception of weakness in the face of the disturbances would give arguments to the right. Macron's possible successors, including Édouard Philippe and Gabriel Attal, have condemned the violence and defended the authority of the State, but they must differentiate themselves from the current Government without completely renouncing the legacy of a presidency in which both held important responsibilities.
Le Pen uses the disturbances against Macron and Mélenchon
Marine Le Pen has taken advantage of the clashes on October 17 to reinforce one of the usual arguments of National Rally: the relationship she establishes between the deterioration of security, Macron's years in government, and the influence of the radical left. The leader has accused LFI of instrumentalizing social demands that she considers legitimate and of contributing to a climate of violence that, she claims, harms precisely those who protest for their living conditions.
Jordan Bardella has hardened that discourse by contrasting violent protesters with workers affected by inflation, a distinction with which RN aims to contest the vote of the working classes without identifying with the mobilizations.
The party had encountered serious difficulties in intervening in the debate about the educational shortcomings that led to the protests, but the prominence gained by the disturbances allows it to recover usual issues of its discourse, such as security and the authority of the State. Le Pen thus tries to simultaneously hold the Executive responsible for its management of the crisis and Mélenchon for his relationship with the mobilizations.
Mélenchon claims the protest and accuses the Government of fueling violence
Jean-Luc Mélenchon has linked his presidential candidacy with the protest movement through his participation in the demonstrations and the denunciation of a police action that, in his opinion, has contributed to aggravating the confrontations. The leader of La France Insoumise accuses the Government of resorting to provocation and the wear of the mobilizations, and considers that the Executive has ended up turning educational and social demands into a public order crisis.
During the day of October 17, Mélenchon accused the police prefect of Paris of favoring disorder with the decisions made regarding the deployment of agents, although he also asked those who share his political positions to stay away from looting and destruction. His deputies had previously called for a parliamentary commission of inquiry into the police action during the student protests, after several interventions raised criticism for the use of force against young demonstrators.
His participation in the mobilizations can strengthen ties with a part of the youth, especially receptive to the denunciations against police violence and to the proposals for transforming the educational system. The confrontation with the Government and with RN also allows him to assert himself as a representative of those who consider institutional responses to social discontent insufficient.
However, this proximity to the protests also entails risks for his presidential aspirations if he intends to broaden his support beyond the usual electorate of LFI. The accusations from the center and the right, which attribute political responsibility to him for the escalation of violence, can harm his image among moderate voters, while his disagreements with other progressive formations hinder the construction of a majority capable of competing in a second round.
Social democracy and environmentalists distance themselves from Mélenchon
The protests have deepened the differences within the French left, especially after Raphaël Glucksmann, the chosen candidate of the social-democratic space in the October primaries, condemned episodes of violence that, in his opinion, have prevented listening to the demands of the protesters. His reaction contrasts with that of Mélenchon, who has insisted on denouncing police actions and the responsibilities of the Executive, instead of focusing his interventions on the riots.
Glucksmann aims to represent a progressive electorate concerned about inequality and the deterioration of public services, but opposed to both violent methods and the permanent confrontation with institutions. His distancing from LFI could facilitate the approach to moderate voters disenchanted with Macronism.
The ecologists, led by Marine Tondelier, have called for changes in police doctrine and warned of the risks that certain interventions pose both for the protesters and for the agents themselves. Tondelier, who participated in the mobilizations, has condemned the violent acts, but has also criticized that the meeting called by the Government with political parties could turn into an exchange of reproaches against the opposition, instead of serving to seek solutions to social demands.
The first socialist secretary, Olivier Faure, has also defended a thorough review of police practices that favors de-escalation, while continuing to condemn looting and attacks on public buildings. These positions reflect the difficulties of a left that shares a good part of the concerns about the deterioration of living conditions, but disagrees on its relationship with the mobilizations and on the response that should be given to violence.
Philippe and Retailleau compete for the order-supporting electorate
The candidates from the center and traditional right have also intervened in the controversy, aware that they need to differentiate their proposals from those of National Rally without appearing as continuators of a government management questioned by the opposition. Édouard Philippe, candidate of Horizons and former prime minister of Macron, has called for firmness against those who participated in the riots and has attributed to LFI a significant political responsibility in the climate of violence.
Bruno Retailleau, candidate of The Republicans, has defended an even stronger response against those responsible for the attacks, while Gabriel Attal, leader of Renaissance, has condemned the clashes as an aggression against the authority of the State. Although the three agree on demanding the restoration of order, during the campaign they will have to explain what changes they propose regarding the security policies developed during Macron's terms.
The prominence gained by the disturbances may benefit Le Pen, whose party has been making security one of its main hallmarks for years. For Philippe and Retailleau, the protests provide arguments to question the Government's management, but they also force them to compete with an extreme right that has a consolidated discourse on this issue and presents violence as a consequence of the failure of traditional parties.
A crisis that may alter the balances of the first and second rounds
Six months before the presidential elections, the political consequences of the protests will depend on their evolution and the response that the Government offers. If the episodes of violence continue to dominate the news, Le Pen could benefit from a debate focused on security, while greater attention to educational and economic demands would give Mélenchon more opportunities to contest the representation of social discontent.
The candidates from the presidential space and traditional right will have to demonstrate that they can guarantee security without neglecting the problems that caused the mobilizations, especially those who have participated in the governments of recent years. Social democracy, for its part, will try to see if its condemnation of the disturbances and its criticisms of the shortcomings of government policy allow it to attract voters who do not identify with either LFI or RN.
For now, the reactions of the parties allow us to distinguish their priorities, but do not show that the disturbances have modified electoral preferences. The Government's response to social demands and the evolution of the mobilizations will be decisive in determining how much this crisis influences the presidential campaign, while the students who initiated the protests continue to demand solutions to the educational shortcomings that led them to the streets.