France is witnessing another major socio-political upheaval: student protests over deteriorating educational facilities have grown into a nationwide movement against rising living costs, declining public services and President Emmanuel Macron’s economic policies. Students, teachers, workers, trade unions and Yellow Vest activists have joined the protests, which have also witnessed violent clashes and police crackdowns. The unrest unveils larger economic and political grievances that have been accumulating over the years.Similar protests have erupted across Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium and Albania over housing, employment, education, corruption and rising costs. Despite different triggers, they raise a common question: why must ordinary people bear the burden of economic policies that fail to ensure basic social and economic security?The French crisis has also become an ideological battleground. US President Donald Trump and sections of the international far right have sought to explain the unrest through immigration and the presence of Muslims in European societies. Such explanations divert attention from the economic conditions that brought hundreds of thousands of people into the streets. They also overlook the participation of students, trade unions and working-class organisations whose demands concern wages, education, pensions and public expenditure. The critical issue is the growing gap between the priorities of governments and the everyday needs of their citizens.How the crisis gained momentumThe protests began in September 2026, when high school students mobilised against teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms, deteriorating facilities and uncertain educational prospects. Teachers, parents and trade unions soon joined, linking these grievances to declining public services and rising living costs. By mid-October, the movement had expanded nationwide, drawing support from workers, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and Yellow Vest activists. More than half a million people reportedly demonstrated on October 17, largely peacefully. However, clashes with security forces escalated into violence, arson and looting, including the destruction of the 19th-century Limoges town hall. Authorities reported around 2,400 arrests, while police deployed tear gas, stun grenades and other crowd-control measures.The unrest raises two questions: what caused such widespread anger, and why did peaceful protests turn violent? The answers lie in accumulated economic grievances, the actions of violent groups, policing practices and inadequate political responses. Blaming immigrants or religious minorities eclipses these underlying causes.Macron’s economic policies and the roots of discontentThe present crisis has its origins in the economic and political choices made over several years. Since assuming the presidency in 2017, Macron has pursued policies intended to improve business competitiveness, attract investment and make the French economy more flexible. His government reduced certain taxes on capital and businesses, introduced labour-market reforms and sought to restrain public expenditure. Supporters argued that these measures would encourage investment, employment and economic growth. Critics maintained that their benefits were distributed unequally and that workers faced increasing insecurity.The abolition of the wealth tax on most financial assets, its replacement by a narrower property wealth tax, and reductions in corporate taxation strengthened the perception that Macron’s policies favoured wealthier sections of society. Meanwhile, pressure on public spending affected education, healthcare and other essential services.A protester holds a board with a photo of French president Emmanuel Macron in front of a burning tourism office during a demonstration against rising living costs and in solidarity with students’ grievances in Lyon, France, Saturday, October 17, 2026. Photo: AP/Laurent Cipriani.The Yellow Vest movement, which began in 2018 against proposed fuel-tax increases, exposed this contradiction. Many participants came from smaller towns and rural areas where dependence on private transport was high and public services had been declining. Their anger extended beyond fuel taxation to wages, inequality and the concentration of political power in Paris. The pension reforms of 2023 deepened this conflict. Macron’s government raised the statutory retirement age from 62 to 64 despite sustained opposition from trade unions and large sections of the public. Its use of constitutional procedures to advance the legislation without a conventional final vote in the National Assembly intensified criticism of the government’s democratic accountability. These episodes created a lasting crisis of trust.France now faces serious fiscal pressures. Public debt has increased substantially, while the budget deficit remains above the European Union’s prescribed limit of 3% of GDP. Governments have consequently faced pressure to reduce expenditure and restore confidence in public finances. However, public debt cannot be examined separately from taxation, economic growth and the distribution of wealth. A government can reduce expenditure on schools, hospitals and social protection while leaving other fiscal priorities largely untouched. Such choices have social consequences.The proposed austerity measures associated with the 2027 budget have therefore become another source of confrontation. For many citizens, further spending cuts threaten institutions already struggling to meet public needs. France remains a wealthy country with substantial productive capacity, but increasing numbers of people experience insecurity in employment, housing, education and retirement.Immigration, Islam and the politics of diversionThe attempt to blame immigrants, particularly Muslims, for the French unrest is part of the contemporary right-wing politics. Trump and his political allies have repeatedly portrayed European migration as a source of social disorder. Similar arguments appear in the campaigns of far-right parties across Europe, including France’s National Rally. Such arguments exploit genuine public anxiety, while directing it towards vulnerable communities.France has a long history of immigration associated with colonialism, industrial development and post-war labour recruitment. Migrants from North Africa and other regions contributed substantially to the country’s industrial and service economies. Many of their descendants are French citizens who have lived in the country for generations.Police scuffle with protesters during a demonstration against rising living costs, joining students’ grievances, in Paris, Saturday, October 17, 2026. Photo: AP/Thibault Camus.Nevertheless, unemployment, residential segregation and discrimination continue to be serious problems in several working-class suburbs. Schools and public facilities in disadvantaged neighbourhoods frequently face greater social pressures. These conditions cannot reasonably be explained by religion alone. They reflect inequalities in employment, housing, education and access to economic opportunities. The political treatment of Muslims has also become increasingly contentious. France’s secular tradition, laïcité, originally sought to protect freedom of conscience and separate religious institutions from state authority. In recent decades, debates over religious clothing, public identity and national integration have placed Muslim communities under particular scrutiny.The danger arises when social and economic grievances are converted into questions of cultural loyalty. There is no credible basis for treating the student and trade-union mobilisation as an immigrant or Muslim uprising. Nor should responsibility for individual acts of violence be assigned collectively to entire communities. The far-right benefits politically when the debate moves away from wages, taxation and public expenditure towards immigration and national identity. Economic frustration can then be redirected against minorities rather than those responsible for policy decisions. Macron’s response and the approaching electionsMacron’s response has combined condemnation of violence with limited concessions to protesters. In his televised address on Sunday, October 18, he denounced the destruction of property and insisted that those responsible should face consequences. He distinguished legitimate grievances from violent actions and promised stronger security measures and assistance to affected businesses. However, he stopped short of imposing a nationwide state of emergency or curfew. But the emerging situation does not guarantee that he will not do it. The government has also announced measures concerning additional teaching staff, student participation and relief from rising fuel costs. These responses may reduce immediate tensions, but they leave unresolved the larger question of economic policy.Macron’s political difficulties are particularly serious because France is approaching its presidential election in 2027. Having served two consecutive terms, he cannot seek immediate re-election. His political coalition has already suffered from parliamentary fragmentation and declining public confidence. The present unrest further weakens the authority of the political centre.Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella’s National Rally have attempted to capitalise on the crisis by presenting themselves as defenders of public order and opponents of Macron’s failed policies. The party combines criticism of economic hardship with restrictive positions on immigration and national identity.On the left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and France Unbowed have supported the social demands of students and workers while condemning vandalism. The electoral consequences remain uncertain. Public disorder may strengthen demands for authoritarian policing. Equally, anger over austerity may increase support for parties advocating redistribution and stronger public services. The question is whether social discontent will produce a more democratic economic alternative or strengthen nationalist and authoritarian politics.From May 1968 to October 2026The present movement inevitably recalls the historic French uprising of May 1968. That movement began with student protests against authoritarian university structures, social restrictions and established political authority. It subsequently developed into a massive workers’ strike involving millions of people. Students questioned capitalism, hierarchy, imperialism and traditional cultural values. The movement emerged during a period of considerable economic growth, although prosperity was distributed unequally and workplace conflicts remained significant.The present generation faces a different economic environment. Today’s students are concerned about educational facilities, employment prospects, housing costs and the affordability of everyday life. Their demands arise from insecurity about the future rather than expectations of continuing economic expansion.Protesters run to leave the Republique square during a demonstration against rising living costs, joining students’ grievances, in Paris, Saturday, October 17, 2026. Photo: AP/Thibault Camus.However, the distinction should not be exaggerated. The workers of 1968 also demanded better wages and working conditions, while contemporary youth movements raise questions about democracy, inequality and political authority. Both periods reveal the capacity of students to initiate wider social movements. Both demonstrate that educational institutions can become centres of political mobilisation when broader social contradictions intensify.A wider European revolt against economic insecurityFrance’s unrest indicates a larger European crisis. In Spain and Portugal, protests against soaring housing costs and property speculation have exposed the growing influence of investors at the expense of ordinary citizens. Italy and Belgium have witnessed demonstrations over rising living costs and declining public services, while Albania faces protests against corruption and unemployment. These movements underline how the commercialisation of essential services and cuts in public expenditure have intensified inequality, particularly among younger generations. Gen Z has emerged as a major force in these protests, with younger students from Gen Alpha also participating. Digital platforms have accelerated mobilisation, but sustained political change depends on organised movements, wider social alliances and clear economic demands.What India and other countries should take away from the protestsThe European protests carry important lessons for India, where unemployment, rising inequality, declining public services and growing economic insecurity have generated widespread discontent. The farmers’ movement demonstrated the strength of organised resistance, while recent mass protests against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including demands for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, have raised serious questions about electoral integrity and democratic accountability.There is also a striking political parallel. In France, the far-right blames immigrants and Muslims for economic and social problems. In India, Hindutva forces have similarly used campaigns against religious minorities to divert attention from unemployment, inequality and failures of governance. Such politics is likely to convert legitimate public grievances into communal divisions.The upshot is that economic austerity, social inequality and the weakening of democratic institutions can reinforce one another. Governments cannot indefinitely contain public anger through policing, nationalist rhetoric or electoral manipulation. The growing participation of younger generations points to an increasing demand for economic justice, social protection and democratic accountability. France’s crisis, like India’s emerging struggles, raises a major question: whose interests do governments ultimately serve? K.M. Seethi is director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension and academic advisor to the International Centre for Polar Studies at the Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) in Kerala. He also served as ICSSR senior fellow, senior professor of international relations and dean of social sciences at MGU.