For several days, an extreme climate of tension settled around hundreds of high schools in France. What began as a protest movement driven by educational demands spiraled into violence, turning certain schools and their neighborhoods into riot scenes.
A spiral of violence
Police officers targeted, firefighters attacked, principals threatened, public buildings set on fire, and the use of fireworks against law enforcement paint the picture of a movement that seems to have escaped its initiators.
The unrest within the Éducation nationale provides fertile ground for protest.
An absurd contradiction
The shortage of teachers, overcrowded classrooms, the complexities of the Parcoursup guidance system, and the perception of a decline in academic standards are all valid concerns driving a portion of youth.
However, the observed acts of destruction create a deep contradiction. School buildings, sometimes renovated at great expense, are damaged or set ablaze, and street furniture is destroyed. These actions undermine the very resources protestors claim to defend.
The economic absurdity is complete: a lack of resources is denounced while destroying infrastructure funded by taxpayers. Authorities largely attribute this drift to the infiltration of gatherings by outside groups, often unconnected to schools and specialized in urban violence.
Political responsibility in question
Beyond local actors, analysis of the situation points to the role of certain political leaders in maintaining this tense climate. For several years, parties like La France insoumise have been accused of thriving on a rhetoric of systematic confrontation, framing every social conflict as the prelude to a popular insurrection.
By describing the State as an "oppressor" and casting suspicion on all forms of authority, particularly the police, this discourse indirectly legitimizes the use of violence as a means of political expression.
While verbal condemnations of violence are customary after the fact, they appear to be a posture of convenience. By encouraging widespread distrust of institutions, this political strategy risks leading a section of the youth to view destruction as a natural extension of protest.
Protesting is not destroying
This situation serves as a reminder of the fundamental distinction between the right to protest, a pillar of democracy, and the destruction of public property, which constitutes an offense.
Attacking symbols of public service, such as a school or a firefighter on duty, is not an act of protest but an attack against society as a whole.
Bernard BERTUCCO VAN DAMME