October 17, 2026, will go down in history less for what it was than for what it will make possible. In fact, social unrest never makes sense on its own. 1789, 1830, 1848, 1870, 1968, 2005, 2023: the same anger has produced contrasting outcomes, depending on who was able to seize upon it and channel it. Today, six forces are in conflict; there is still time to choose which one will shape history.
- The first is the most anticipated: the demand for authority. Looters, injured law enforcement officers, a government that failed to protect its citizens; the answer is, at first glance, simple: prioritize the police, the justice system, and punishment. This responds to a real fear—that of shopkeepers driven to ruin and residents who have seen their streets burn. But history is cruel to those who respond only in this way: 2005, and then 2023, have shown that punishment—while indispensable—cures nothing; it treats the symptom; it has never brought the fever to an end. Funding the police is necessary. Making it the sole policy would be an admission that we have given up on understanding.
- The second dynamic gives priority to those who sparked the movement: high school students. For years, they have been denouncing the shortage of teachers and the dilapidated state of school buildings. If we truly want to listen to this generation, it will take more than a consultation platform. High school and college students aren’t asking for the moon. They’re asking for the means to learn. This isn’t a demand from rioters; it’s a warning.
- The third dynamic is the most dangerous: the normalization of lawlessness.When the rule of law is nothing more than optional advice; when thousands of looters can swarm a single city, it is no longer a matter of “anger”—it is proof that prohibitions no longer instill fear; that property is no longer respected; that the rule of law no longer has a reason to exist. A society without common rules is no longer a free society. And the first victims are always the poorest and most vulnerable.
- The fourth dynamic pits one generation against another. France is aging; its elderly voters carry more weight with each election; its young people, meanwhile, have only the streets to make their voices heard, while the older generation will leave them with an abysmal debt, a degraded environment, and unaffordable housing. The 2027 budget and the candidates’ platforms will determine whether we continue to protect the status quo or whether we will finally invest in the future. No democracy survives for long when young people believe the ballot box is not meant for them.
- The fifth dynamic is the most overlooked: France’s current situation is largely due to American and Russian actions. The rise in diesel prices stems from the Gulf War and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz; America, once a protector, has become an ally of Moscow. A continent that has no control over either its energy or its security cannot promise its citizens low energy prices or credible security. The response has been too long in coming: we must increase our defense and civil protection capabilities, electrify transportation, accelerate the development of renewables and nuclear power, and build up stockpiles and refining capacity. We must start now, before the next crisis forces us to realize that it is too late.
- The sixth dynamic, that of the framework for action: no European nation, not even France, can on its own purchase energy more cheaply, finance its defense, or speak on equal terms with the great empires of our time. Europe is not the cause of our difficulties; it is the scale at which they can be resolved. An integrated energy market, a shared defense, and a common borrowing capacity: these are the tools of true sovereignty, not the superficial sovereignty offered by nationalism.
These six perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Order without justice breeds revolt; justice without order breeds anarchy; a ruined France within a powerful Europe would be a disaster for us all. The only coherent synthesis of all this is a plan aimed at investing in schools and housing; at restoring authority through the law and not in defiance of it; at giving police the means to act and judges the means to impose penalties; and at pooling energy and defense resources on a continental scale.
None of this is utopian; yet it is not the most likely outcome. It would be easier, more reassuring, and more in line with the electoral demographics to draw from this crisis a platform focused on the elderly and on isolationism: more police, less Europe.
Fears dictate votes more than hopes do. And politicians, who look at polls more than they look to the future, are rarely tempted to go where courage is most needed.
Yet nothing is set in stone. In rugby, when the ball soars after a high kick, no one knows yet who will jump the highest to catch it and be willing to take the hit.
Today, the ball is still in the air. We’ll only score the try by grabbing it, carrying it, protecting it, running, taking the hits, looking ahead, and working as a team. The coming months will reveal who, among those claiming to govern France, will have the courage to seize it and look ahead.
Image:Mike Egerton/PA via AP