Analyzing Tony Blair’s Perspective on the French Riots and Effective Measures to Address Social Unrest

Sign up to receive complimentary updates on French politics.

Every morning, we will send you a comprehensive email, the myFT Daily Digest, summarizing the latest news in French politics.

The author served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Upon my recent return from Paris, I noticed a return to calmness in the city. The streets were bustling, tourists going about their activities, and the Parisians behaving as usual. Concerns arose that the riots of the past 10 days could affect the upcoming Olympics. However, London also experienced serious unrest in 2011, and yet we successfully hosted one of the most remarkable Olympics in 2012. Undoubtedly, Paris 2024 will be a magnificent spectacle.

Nevertheless, the memory of the nights of rioting and destruction triggered by the tragic killing of a 17-year-old boy in Nanterre by a police officer will have a lasting impact. Naturally, it has prompted introspection in France. The reality is that events like this, followed by outbursts of rage and criminal behavior, could occur in any modern western developed country. It highlights deep-seated problems within a segment of society that defy traditional policymaking.

A familiar pattern emerges: marginalized groups of citizens, particularly disaffected youth, inhabit certain neighborhoods of major cities. These areas are plagued by a culture characterized by drug use, gangs, high unemployment rates (at least in the formal economy), low educational attainment, and often a contentious relationship between the community and law enforcement.

When an incident involving the police occurs, it acts as a catalyst for unrest. What starts as a protest quickly transforms into an unsightly riot involving looting, plundering, and crime. Predictably, there is a political response. The right-wing blames lax penalties, the criminal justice system (and, more insidiously, immigration), while the left-wing points fingers at social conditions. The right speaks for the majority of the public who abhor violence but fails to convince those perpetrating it. The left faces a dilemma, torn between sympathizing with the alienated and excusing the inexcusable for the majority.

Both sides have valid arguments, but their strategies have proven ineffective. In the midst of this untenable situation is President Emmanuel Macron. The killing should never have occurred, that is clear. The subsequent violence should not have been the response, that too is evident. Yet, when Macron condemns the killing, he appears unsupportive of the police, and when he denounces the violence, it seems as if he is oblivious to the underlying causes of the riot.

A review of the record reveals that the issue has not been neglected. On the contrary, Macron’s government has invested in the poorest areas of inner cities and towns, implementing programs for families, sports, youth recreation, and regeneration projects worth billions. France itself has attracted significant investment, fostered a thriving startup tech sector, and pursued controversial reforms such as pension reform, which most external observers consider necessary and long overdue. Nevertheless, reforms targeting entrenched interests are never popular in the short term, and Macron is no exception. My own premiership was almost jeopardized over university tuition fees, rather than foreign policy.

However, these realities do not adequately address the state of these neighborhoods, where the culture operates on a different wavelength from that of the tech entrepreneur. So, what does work?

First and foremost, without order, there can be no hope. Criminality must not surpass law enforcement. Police should not encounter any “no go” zones. They require authority and support. If necessary, special courts should handle offenders swiftly. In the UK, the failure of the current system to address this issue will become a nightmare in the future unless rectified.

Secondly, it is crucial to confront the underlying social conditions that give rise to this culture of alienation. Programs offering assistance are not a waste of money. Some young people will benefit from them. However, they must be devised and implemented collaboratively with the affected communities. This way, it is evident that the influx of funds is part of a mutual agreement. The state must shoulder its responsibilities, but the communities also have their own obligations. It is the role of the government and local leaders to establish a two-way accord.

Thirdly, the significance of education should never be underestimated. In the poorest boroughs of London, the percentage of children achieving good GCSE results was only around 25 to 30 percent in 1997, an appalling failure rate. Very few went on to university. Over the course of a decade, the London Schools Challenge Programme implemented substantial educational reforms. By 2010, the figures had risen to over 75 percent of students passing GCSEs, with approximately half of them pursuing higher education. Education is the optimal solution to combat alienation.

The fourth aspect entails targeting what we can refer to as “troubled” families, often well-known within the community and responsible for a significant proportion of criminal activity. Conventional programs aimed solely at alleviating “poverty” have proven ineffective. These families require a combination of pressure and support. Their present circumstances should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Macron is an exceptional leader. Resorting to populism from either end of the political spectrum is not the solution for France or any other Western nation. What is needed is targeted policies grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the problem.

Finally, one must recognize that resolving these issues takes time— at least a decade.