The French authorities once again face a question that declarations about defending republican order can no longer adequately answer: why do social protests in France repeatedly lead to serious injuries, mass arrests and allegations of excessive force? In the autumn of 2026, that question has become particularly urgent, with minors among those injured after taking to the streets to demand decent learning conditions.
These developments point to a serious political failure on the part of Emmanuel Macron. A president who promised to renew France has failed to overcome the alienation between the state and a substantial section of society. The recurring confrontations expose his administration’s limited ability to resolve disputes before the police become the principal point of contact between the authorities and dissatisfied citizens.
***
Presidential responsibility must nevertheless be defined precisely. Macron does not personally issue every operational order, and investigators and courts must establish responsibility for individual incidents of violence. But political responsibility rests with those who set the executive’s priorities, shape its engagement with society and decide how to respond to years of warnings from human rights organisations. That responsibility cannot indefinitely be shifted onto individual officers.
School protests put the state under scrutiny
The current mobilisation began in September amid frustration over teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating school buildings. Amnesty International urged the French authorities to end their disproportionate policing response and ensure the safety of young people participating in peaceful demonstrations. The organisation raised concerns about the dangerous use of tear gas, batons and restraint techniques, as well as serious injuries.
In a publication dated October 14, Human Rights Watch described particularly severe cases: a 15-year-old boy lost a hand to an explosive police grenade, while a 14-year-old suffered a shattered jaw after being struck by a tear-gas canister fired at close range. According to figures cited by the organisation, more than 6,800 people, predominantly minors, had been detained since the demonstrations began. Thirty-six internal investigations into alleged police misconduct had reportedly been opened.
These reports require thorough investigation. Yet the scale of the allegations already raises fundamental questions about the quality of governance. When demands for teachers and adequate school facilities develop into a crisis over the use of force against children, the authorities must explain why their mechanisms for preventing escalation failed.
The consequences extend beyond a single protest movement. A teenager’s first difficult encounter with the state can shape their attitude towards public institutions for years. If that encounter involves fear, detention or injury, restoring trust will require considerably more than another promise to conduct an inquiry.
Warnings long predated this autumn
The authorities cannot plausibly portray the current situation as unforeseen. As early as December 2018, during the Yellow Vest demonstrations and parallel school protests, Human Rights Watch documented injuries to peaceful demonstrators, students and journalists resulting from police crowd-control tactics. The organisation described injuries caused by rubber projectiles and other weapons used to disperse crowds.
The choice of methods for maintaining public order was already a central concern. The state has the right to stop attacks and destruction. But weapons capable of causing devastating injuries demand especially rigorous scrutiny of their necessity and the risks they pose to others.
In 2020, French police announced that they would stop using GLI-F4 explosive tear-gas grenades. Human Rights Watch welcomed the decision, recalling previously documented severe limb injuries. The move demonstrated that police practices could change. It also raised an unavoidable question: why did reconsideration of dangerous methods come only after people had suffered life-changing injuries?
The recurrence of similar allegations now casts doubt on the depth of those reforms. Replacing one type of weapon is insufficient if political leaders fail to secure lasting changes in the broader treatment of protesters.
Pension reform and the breakdown of consent
In 2023, the dispute over pension reform again exposed the strained relationship between the government and society. The government invoked Article 49.3 of the Constitution, allowing the reform to proceed without a conventional vote on the text in the National Assembly. The use of that constitutional mechanism intensified anger amid mass demonstrations against the increase in the retirement age.
The legal availability of a procedure does not settle the question of political legitimacy. A government may have the authority to adopt a measure while failing to explain it convincingly, negotiate effectively or maintain sufficient public confidence in the process.
This revealed one of the central weaknesses of Macron’s approach to governing: determination to push decisions through was not matched by an equivalent ability to reduce public alienation.
During the pension protests, Human Rights Watch reported indications of disproportionate and indiscriminate force, arrests raising concerns about arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and assaults on journalists.
The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights stressed that isolated acts of violence by demonstrators do not justify excessive force by state agents. She also expressed concern about arrests and detention on grounds that did not justify interference with the right to liberty.
The criticism therefore came from international institutions whose standards France has undertaken to uphold.
When policing undermines public trust
The situation becomes especially troubling when allegations of police misconduct are accompanied by pressure on those scrutinising it. In its report covering France in 2023, Human Rights Watch recalled the interior minister’s threat to review public funding for the Human Rights League after it criticised police violence at Sainte-Soline. The organisation also noted that the Council of State overturned the dissolution of the environmental movement Les Soulèvements de la Terre, finding that the decision infringed freedom of association.
Judicial intervention demonstrates that meaningful checks on executive power remain in France. But the need for such intervention also exposes problems in the executive’s own decisions.
A democracy depends on human rights defenders, journalists and peaceful demonstrators being able to fulfil their public roles without fear of unjustified coercion. When those protections weaken, the consequences reach far beyond the participants in any particular demonstration.
Where Macron’s responsibility lies
It would be historically inaccurate to attribute all of France’s social tensions to a single president. Inequality, tensions in disadvantaged suburbs and problems within police culture predate Macron’s arrival in office. But the longer a leader remains in power, the less convincing it becomes to invoke inherited difficulties.
Political incompetence reveals itself in the failure to learn from recurring crises. After the Yellow Vest protests, the pension dispute and repeated warnings from international organisations, the French leadership had ample grounds for a fundamental reassessment of its approach.
A credible response would involve independent investigations, transparent reporting of their findings, accountability for proven abuses and changes to tactics that create an unjustifiable risk of serious injury. Without those measures, each new promise to investigate will inevitably be judged against the record of previous crises.
France has a strong legal tradition, professional journalists and an active civil society. Those strengths justify holding its government to demanding standards. The country’s international authority cannot rest on declarations about freedom while human rights organisations repeatedly report violations of the right to peaceful protest at home.
These recurring crises expose the central failure of Macron’s presidency: his inability to deliver change while retaining public trust. After years in office, he has failed to break the cycle of unpopular decisions, protests, forceful policing and deeper public alienation. Police lines may temporarily contain discontent, but they cannot compensate for a lack of effective political leadership. Macron bears responsibility for that failure of governance. A president under whom social disputes repeatedly escalate into crises of public trust and human rights gives the country increasing reason to question his capacity to govern.
