Protest violence in France: the role of politics, policing and protest culture
Current affairs image: Thibaud Moritz (ANP)
Why do protests turn violent, and how can policing influence what happens next? Protests in France raise questions about the political motivations behind demonstrations, the role of the police and the risk of further polarisation.
Mischa Dekker, Assistant Professor and Don Weenink, Professor of Violence and Policing, are both part of the Violence and Violence Prevention research group at the Institute of Security and Global Affairs (ISGA). They explain how politics, policing and protest culture shape protests in France, and why some turn violent.
Political motivations deserve more attention
Media coverage often focuses on violence and vandalism, while the political motivations behind demonstrations receive less attention. During France’s pension reform protests, these included opposition to the reforms and the use of Article 49.3 of the Constitution to pass them without a vote in the National Assembly. Protesters also raised broader concerns about political representation and social inequality.
Describing violence as a ‘lack of authority’ tells us little on its own. Whose authority is being challenged? How is it being undermined? And how does this lead to violence? Research on what motivates people to join protests shows that ideological beliefs, feelings of injustice and political neglect as well as views on whether violence is legitimate can influence their participation and behaviour. ‘This does not mean that violence is a legitimate or inevitable consequence of these grievances, but it does mean that an analysis focused exclusively on public order and authority overlooks important explanatory factors,’ Dekker and Weenink explain.
The researchers argue that violence and vandalism must not be accepted as political tools in a democracy governed by the rule of law. But dismissing those involved as ‘thugs’ or ‘rioters’ overlooks the concerns they may be expressing. People who use violence can have political motives alongside other motivations, such as excitement or the feeling of temporarily being in control of the city.
The republic paradox: policing from a distance
French policing of demonstrations has historically focused on controlling crowds from a distance. Dekker and Weenink describe this approach as partly rooted in a republican view of the state: a neutral guardian of public order that does not interfere with citizens’ political activity. ‘However, this doctrine of creating distance can hinder direct contact between police and protestors,’ the researchers explain.
Maintaining distance can also make it harder to distinguish peaceful demonstrators from violent groups. Using tear gas against an entire crowd, rather than talking to demonstrators and isolating violent groups, can create fear and hostility among peaceful protesters too. It can also lead to more violence from a small group. The researchers link this approach to a broader shift away from regular contact between police and neighbourhood residents, including the dismantling of neighbourhood policing, or police de proximité, under Nicolas Sarkozy.
The paradox is that maintaining distance is intended to preserve order and respect protesters’ freedom to act independently. Under certain circumstances, however, it can contribute to misunderstanding, fear, hostility and escalating violence, while opportunities to de-escalate are lost.
A tradition of confrontational protest
France has a long history of confrontational street protests, from May 1968, the riots of 2005 to the Yellow Vests demonstrations starting 2018 and the pension reform protests of 2023. An IFOP survey conducted in March 2023 asked about the use of violence during the pension reform demonstrations. It found that 35% of respondents agreed that violent actions are sometimes necessary to advance a cause or ideas. Among supporters of La France insoumise, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s radical left-wing party, 60% agreed.
Dekker and Weenink note that these results are difficult to compare with attitudes in the Netherlands. Even so, they show that not everyone condemned violence as a means of protest in this French context. However, most respondents did not agree with the statement.
Violence can deepen political divisions
When confrontations between police and protesters escalate, images of police violence and vandalism can deepen distrust on both sides and sharpen political divisions. Dekker and Weenink describe a possible consequence: ‘A self-reinforcing cycle of confrontation, repression, and polarisation could narrow the space for peaceful political mediation.’
Understanding protest violence therefore requires attention to political motivations, policing practices and the wider social context. Looking at these factors does not mean justifying violence. It helps explain how violence can develop and where opportunities to de-escalate may be lost.